| 1 |
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:32:44 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@××××.org> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian. |
| 4 |
| |
| 5 |
| I don't see how Gentoo's status (or rather lack thereof) as a |
| 6 |
| corporation or Debian has anything to do with encouraging peer review. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
You're taking methods from a "how your typical oversized software |
| 9 |
engineering bloatware project works" situation and trying to apply them |
| 10 |
outside of their domain. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
| > The assumption is |
| 13 |
| > that the majority of fixes are done correctly the first time, and |
| 14 |
| > this assumption is valid. |
| 15 |
| |
| 16 |
| I don't see how you could prove that assumption. If you can, please do |
| 17 |
| so. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Experience. I receive bug mail for a heck of a lot of bugs. I see how |
| 20 |
many of them are indeed correctly resolved when they are marked as such. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
| > Hence, the default behaviour is to mark bugs as |
| 23 |
| > RESOLVED, with reopening being an entirely legitimate and encouraged |
| 24 |
| > response for those occasional instances where the resolution was not |
| 25 |
| > sufficient. |
| 26 |
| > |
| 27 |
| |
| 28 |
| There are plenty of devs who don't share in the viewpoint that |
| 29 |
| reopening bugs is legitimate and should encouraged (although I agree |
| 30 |
| it is and should be). I base opinion that on some of the kicking and |
| 31 |
| screaming I've seen on bugzilla in the past. ;) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
No, that kicking and screaming is reserved for when bugs are reopened |
| 34 |
inappropriately. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives