| 1 |
On 14-05-2010 12:45:54 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> Following Petteri's thread last month about RESOLVED LATER and given a |
| 3 |
> issue that has been reported to User Relations about the "ab"use of the |
| 4 |
> VERIFIED status in Bugzilla, I'd like to get some feedback from fellow |
| 5 |
> developers. |
| 6 |
> We have a user that has been marking resolved bugs as verified following |
| 7 |
> his actions on other bugzilla(s) and he quotes the Bugzilla Docs[1] to |
| 8 |
> explain his actions. Some developers have become upset because of the |
| 9 |
> "spam" email that action causes. |
| 10 |
> It seems to me the reason those developers got upset is that they don't |
| 11 |
> value the VERIFIED status so I wonder if anyone uses that status or if |
| 12 |
> we should just drop it. If possible and useful, would we like to |
| 13 |
> restrict the VERIFIED status change to a specific group of people? |
| 14 |
> Please share your thoughts on this so we can decide how to act on this case. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm all for removing it from the workflow. I take a opportunistic |
| 17 |
approach, assuming that the reporter (or someone else with the same |
| 18 |
problem) will reopen the bug if it turns out a fix wasn't good enough or |
| 19 |
something. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> [1] - http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.4/en/html/lifecycle.html |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 26 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives