Bugs priorities

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at backtobasicsmgmt.com
Fri Sep 19 23:02:24 PDT 2003


James Robertson wrote:

> 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.
> 

I don't think the LFS testing team signed up to be nALFS testers as 
well, but I could be mistaken. The other concern here is that a bug 
may be put into FIXED state, committed to CVS, but untestable because 
CVS HEAD may be in a state of flux and not usable (shouldn't really 
happen, but you never know).

I think the process I outlined in my other message, being:

assignee puts patch into buzilla and changes status to FIXED

reviewer (other member of nALFS development team) reviews code and 
either changes status to VERIFIED or back to ASSIGNED if additional 
work is needed

assignee or other code commit person commits patch to CVS and changes 
status to CLOSED

James, I currently can't accept ("assign") bugs to myself, except when 
I enter them. Can this be changed?




More information about the alfs-log mailing list