When to set VERIFIED in BugZilla?

[James Richard Tyrer]

Carlos Leonhard Woelz wrote:
> JRT,
> 
> No need to be argumentative here.
> 
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:39:53 -0700, "James Richard Tyrer" 
> <tyrerj at acm.org> said:
> 
>> 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'.
> 
> 
> This rant is totally unecessary: Cornelius is just stating that a 
> *formal* QA is unecessary.

I guess that it depends on what he meant by formal.  If
formal==(bureaucratic and centralized) then I agree with him.  But, that
isn't what I take "formal" to mean.  We should have a document describing
the procedure -- to me, this is formal.

> See this thread and documents for what a formal QA requires:
> 
> http://lists.kde.org/?t=107480372200001&r=1&w=2
> 
"This is way too formal for KDE, I guess".  That pretty much says it.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> We have a distributed QA now: bugzilla.

No, there is no QA with BugZilla as KDE uses it.

> If you have a proposition to improve it, then formulate it. And please
> concentrate your ideas in one e-mail. There is no need to answer all of
> them.

I should apologize for working the way I learned in Engineering college. 
First you have a discussion, then you submit a proposal based in part on 
what you learned in the discussion.  I don't sit in a locked room and 
decide how to do things without input from colleagues.

However, I will do that and hope that I'm not tersely told that I am wrong.

--
JRT