| 1 |
Nathan L. Adams wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to |
| 3 |
> *improve* QA. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Some thoughts from a humble user: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time, |
| 8 |
it is the most scarce resource. To optimize this, the common case must |
| 9 |
be made fast, and the common case is that the bug has been truly fixed |
| 10 |
when it has been closed. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The person reporting the bug can reopen the bug, as he/she is in a |
| 13 |
perfect position to test the fix. You can't have the people (developers) |
| 14 |
who are already the busiest spend significant time recreating bugs and |
| 15 |
testing the fix, just to find out that, yes indeed, it has been fixed. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sincerely, |
| 18 |
Marco |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives