[PD-dev] closing bugs (was Re: [ pure-data-Bugs-2004979 ] hid defaults to debugging (flood of "hid_get_events"))

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jul 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>> The "Open", "Pending", and "Closed" states have to do with  
>> attention,  not the state of the bug.  If someone reports a bug,  
>> then no dev can
>
> indeed, and thus frank is right when requesting that a bug should  
> not be set to "Closed" when it still needs attention (e.g. merge it  
> back from one branch into the main trunk).
>
> the same goes for patches: if there is a bug-report about bug-#123  
> and there is also a patch that closes this bug, this does (imo) not  
> qualify to close the bug-report as long as the upstream author has  
> not included the patch yet.
>
>> reproduce it, I would not say that this bug is fixed.  But I do  
>> think  it is appropriate to set that bug to "Pending" asking for  
>> an example  patch.  If no one is willing to follow up on it, then  
>> it'll be closed  in two weeks automatically.  So that would be  
>> "Closed" but definitely  not "Fixed".
>
> right again.
> the (prelaminary) "resolution" should probably be "works for me" or  
> "invalid".
>
> i think that the correct state of bug#2004979 would be "Open" and  
> "Fixed"
>
>> It is an important distinction in managing all of the bugs.  It  
>> is  the best way I can think of for keeping track of which bug  
>> reports  need developer attention.
>
> and as your bug still needs attention it should be open.
> but i am repeating myself.


Anyone feel like distilling this thread into a FAQ?  It would be good  
to have it documented so it is clear what practice we are following.

.hc

>
>
> good night,
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

All information should be free.  - the hacker ethic