bug resolution states

Michael Leupold lemma at confuego.org
Sat Nov 15 11:40:35 GMT 2008

On Saturday 15 November 2008 12:12:27 Jordi Polo wrote:
> What I ask is somewhat different.
> I can not reproduce (as of REMIND)
> but I did modify the code to something that makes more sense and possibly
> close the bug.
> For instance, a bug report says that something crash.
> It is not crashing for you and the code is pretty trivial but take a look
> at it and locate an ASSERT where you think should be only a return -1; 
> change it and make more sense. Of course, the code is still not crashing.
> In this kind of case  WORKSFORME is acceptable?

I don't think a bug like that should be RESOLVED without the recheck. We've 
been already talking about a kind of flag to set like "NEEDSMOREINFORMATION". 
In my opinion it could be used both for bugs needing more information to start 
working as well as bugs needing a recheck.

I think the workflow should be:
1) Bug you can't reproduce+
2) Some minor changes that might fix it
No information => close the bug as REMIND after an appropriate amount of time.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20081115/4efdffdc/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list