Use of CLOSED in Bugzilla (was) Re: [Bug 284853] ...

[David Edmundson]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Adrián Chaves Fernández
<adriyetichaves at gmail.com> wrote:
> I still think a person other than the author of the bug should verify it
> before the bug is closed. It does not need to be the reporter, it can be a
> fellow developer. It’s the most basic QA there is.
>
> But yes, of course, you can just resolve and leave it up to whoever finds out
> it is not actually fixed to reopen it, the same you would do for a regression.

Well, we need to have a policy that everyone follows and actually does.
Bugzilla doesn't really work if different teams do different things.

Right now, we have a bugzilla workflow that very few developers
actually know about.
(is a bug workflow documented anywhere?)

A quick search over the last 6 months shows 324 actually closed bugs,
and >10000 resolved bugs. That's less than 3% of developers are
following the correct procedure.

This is a broken state to be in, that reflects very badly on KDE, and
we need to do something.

That leaves two options, either we document what closed is for, blog
about it, come up with some plan for the vast quantity of resolved,
never closed bugs. Or we get rid of closed, and officially have it as
something we in KDE doesn't use.


>also easier to maintain) and it would make a discussion about whether
>we should use CLOSED or RESOLVED unnecessary as there is no such thing
>as CLOSED. There is only RESOLVED and VERIFIED which is much better
>terminology.

Does this actually change anything other than the words. Would we
still expect all resolved bugs to be verified?


> _______________________________________________
> Kde-testing mailing list
> Kde-testing at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-testing