When to set VERIFIED in BugZilla?

[James Richard Tyrer]

Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> On Thursday 11 March 2004 16:55, Carlos Leonhard Woelz wrote:
> 
>> There is no QA in KDE currently. There are no volunteers for the hard 
>> (and technical) work of designing such programm, and no volunteers for
>>  doing the massive work of following all bugs.
> 
> 
> I think there are more rewarding

What rewards a person differs among people.

> and more useful things to do than setting up a formal quality assurance
> process for KDE.

Users would disagree.  The most important task for KDE is to effectively
deal with the mountain of bugs.  There are several aspects of this, but for
the current ones, some sort of *informal* Quality Assurance process is
clearly needed.  For the obsolete ones, they simply need to be CLOSED.
This leaves a lot of old ones that need to have something else done with
them -- some need to be updated.  And I am certain that there are many that
will fall into the category of 'other'.

> Considering the argument "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow",
> one could even take the position that there is actually no need for a
> quality assurance process.

Since there are not "enough eyeballs" this would be a wrong assumption.
Specifically, one of the aims of a distributed Quality Assurance process is
to get more "eyeballs" and to get them properly focused -- good
organization can (to some degree) compensate for a lack of numbers.

--
JRT