On 5/31/07, Jan Zerebecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure there is a agreement what some things here mean. The
following is my understanding of things, please correct me or
state differing understanding:
triage bugs: Make sure the bug is properly filed, has enough
information and possibly uncover the cause (e.g. regression
testing, finding where a NULL that causes a crash inside the
application comes from). This also includes marking a bug
resolved,fixed or closed or whatever, but the prior thing is more
important because it makes it easier to fix.
Agree
resolved,fixed: I only mark bugs where I'm confident that they
are really fixed as this. So if I need to ask the reporter or
some user if it now works for them I do this before resolving it.
I think I never "closed" a bug.
Agree
To detect e.g. resolved bugs with new comments (e.g. requesting
reopen) I run a query for changed bugs (where I made a comment)
since last date up to which I queried this (I noted that down)
and e.g. yesterday. Closing bugs doesn't help here either as they
could be closed in error, so someone would still want to request
those to be reopened.
True, bugs could be closed in error as well, which is why I don't
close a bug, unless I was working with the reporter, or it is over
(eg) 6 months since the last comment, and is already resolved.
So is someone really using the "closed" status (not in the sense
that they set it but e.g. use it in queries)?
No, but that was my point. I search thru resolved bugs, to double
check that users are satisfied with the result, and it does me no good
to do that if I am searching thru bugs that are >6months old. If it
is closed, a query for resolved bugs will not find those that are
closed
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:36:45PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote:
> So I was closing bugs that were
> invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the
> lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru....
Does closed convey any more meaning than resolved as
invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme? I mean who would mark a bug as
resolved if that is not the conclusion and not reopen when that
was done in error? So isn't closing perhaps something we _really_
want to avoid doing too prematurely? Perhaps something we only do
every major release ( like 0.9 ). Otherwise it looses it's
meaning as "this is something we never ever need to look at".
See above, however you are onto something with the only closing stale
bugs at major releases..
According to James, the standard for marking a bug abandoned is 6
months from the request of more information without any response from
the reporter or someone else having the same issue, and also not
reproducible via a download. Perhaps we could do something similar to
what Jonathan did before 0.9, say ping every bug at the 1.0 code
freeze, and then resolve AND close any with no response, or that the
reporter replied saying it is not an issue anymore..
With that in mind, once 1.0 goes live, will we still be doing monthly
stable 1.0x releases, or will the release cycle be more of any x.0x
releases are development and the stables will be x.x or x.5? However
it is done, I think it would be a good idea to do pings of bugs prior
to any STABLE release, and during development release periods, just
ping when more than 6mos old like we currently are doing.
--
Thanks
Tom
