Bugs priorities

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Sep 19 13:20:08 PDT 2003


Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

> Neven Has wrote:
> 
>> I have changed just a few ones.  To P1 the ones that I think should go
>> into next release (1.1.8, ASAP) and to P2 the ones that have been
>> mentioned a lot on mailing lists as needed, so preferably the ones
>> that will be solved for the release after the next one.
> 
> OK, will take a look tomorrow at what can be done about them.
> 
> I think you should leave the "Version" field set to the version the bug 
> was reported against, as opposed to changing it to CVS. The Version 
> field should only be set to CVS when the reporter of the bug has 
> duplicated the bug using the (then current) CVS HEAD code.

I agree completely.

> Who will be responsible for moving bugs from FIXED to VERIFIED and/or 
> CLOSED? Do we need someone to actually download/compile/test the CVS 
> code before doing that, or can we just do it when the code is committed 
> to CVS?

I would think that after we get the testing team up to speed, they would 
be the ones to let us know that the bug has been fixed.  I'll post a 
note to lfs-dev on this.  We do need to have some mechanism to actually 
have a person/team verify the bug is fixed.  A hacker that makes the 
patch, may not have done a compelte test.

Thoughts?

James

-- 
James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 -- http://counter.li.org
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   -- http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}bugs.linuxfromscratch.org




More information about the alfs-log mailing list