From: Mark Gilbert (markgilbert@hotpop.com)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 15:19:35 EST
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 09:52, Daniel Jensen wrote:
> Mark Gilbert wrote:
> >>BTW, for QA, what's the policy on verifying bugs which are verifiably
> >>fixed in head but not in stable? Should such bugs get verified as fixed
> >>unless the bug is slated for fixing in stable (is on the "make 1.0.5 not
> >>suck" list)?
> >
> > Change the version field of the bugzilla entry to indicate STABLE cvs
> > branch, and make a note that the fix needs to be backported (as a
> > comment). Keep the bug open.
>
> I wasn't clear enough, sorry- I mean bugs which are in the RESOLVED
> state which I am wondering whether to verify. Should these really be
> reopened?
If a bug exists in stable and head, and then is fixed in head, it should
not be marked resolved until the fix is backported to stable. Of
course, to be particular, if the version flag is head, then it isnt
really wrong to mark it resolved, but then one would be obligated to
reopen and mark stable. The former way is just a shortcut to be less
superfluous bug traffic.
If it is already marked resolved, just leave it that way (for same
reason), but dont verify until fix is backported.
The exception of course is if I or hub specifically state that a given
fix should not be backported or is not necessary (the latter very
unlikely since it is a _bug_, in stable).
I hope this clears things up for you. If not, I can try to explain in
even further detail. We appreciate the work that QA does.
Best regards
-MG
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 15:11:07 EST