On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 07:33:03PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> all bugs(*). One could have a bot setting bugs from RESOLVED to VERIFIED
> though, if there is not objection ("verified by silent approval")
... after the suggested "a month" timeframe, that is obviously.
Best,
Bjoern
_
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:19:00AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Okay - so what should the actual REOPENED be used for (if anything)?
> Should only developers use it? Since QA is using it wrong (I think you
> referring to one I changed), users use it wrong all the timejust
> curious what its
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> It sounds like the ideal situation would be for a bug to be in some
> kind of 'fluid' state for some time after it's ostensibly fixed
> (say, a month)
That workflow already exists in bugzilla, however it is not how we are using
Robinson Tryon wrote
> It sounds like the ideal situation would be for a bug to be in some
> kind of 'fluid' state for some time after it's ostensibly fixed (say,
> a month), and then after that point, the act of 'reopening' it would
> create a new bug, rather than still operating on the same bug r
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> I happy enough with reopened in the cases where the dev claims to fix
> the problem and sets it to fixed, tester tests and find it doesn't work.
> Turnaround time there would ideally be sort of next day or two, but up
> to a month seems the
Hello, hello!
This Wednesday we have a double-whammy: QA Meeting and Document Freedom Day!
Agenda and link to the time in your timezone is all available here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2015/March_25
I hope to see you all there.
Best,
--R
--
Robinson Tryon
QA Engineer - T
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 08:29 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
>
> On 03/24/2015 08:23 AM, Pedro wrote:
> > Michael Stahl-2 wrote
> >> actually, would it be possible in our bugzilla to disallow a transition
> >> from RESOLVED -> REOPENED except if the user is a well-known QA or
> >> developer with a specia
On 03/24/2015 08:23 AM, Pedro wrote:
> Michael Stahl-2 wrote
>> actually, would it be possible in our bugzilla to disallow a transition
>> from RESOLVED -> REOPENED except if the user is a well-known QA or
>> developer with a special bugzilla privilege?
well I'm the one who made the mistake this
Michael Stahl-2 wrote
> actually, would it be possible in our bugzilla to disallow a transition
> from RESOLVED -> REOPENED except if the user is a well-known QA or
> developer with a special bugzilla privilege?
I think this should be done ASAP.
If new Bugzilla users are advised to search for exi
Hi Caolan -
On 03/24/2015 04:36 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has
> passed since it was closed.
I wonder if removing REOPENED all together is appropriate then - it
seems like it has no place outside of a very very narrow 30 day wind
On 24.03.2015 12:36, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has
> passed since it was closed.
indeed doing that is very annoying. personally i've started to simply
ignore bugs in state REPOENED some time ago, they are generally very
confusing a
It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has
passed since it was closed.
a) The person its "assigned" to may have moved on, changed jobs, or died
and so is not in a position to help anymore so the bug appears to
"belong" to someone, but isn't really and anyone looking for
12 matches
Mail list logo
