Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

I just realized that there is no CONFIRMED, I think this would be a helpful
classification but if it can't/won't be added then I still feel like we
should differentiate confirmed from non confirmed in some manner.

This could be as simple as making it ASSIGNED TO and have it blank or just
default libreoffice or some other method. I just think Devs shouldn't be
wasting their time going through UNCONFIRMED bugs that more probable than
not either a. require more info or b. has already been solved or c. isn't a
bug to begin with.

If one of our team can corroborate that a bug is in fact confirmed I think
we should do something to notate it.

Just my thoughts, as it's really confusing having thousands of UNCONFIRMED
bugs when in fact many of them are confirmed, just not assigned.

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Korrawit Pruegsanusak <
detective.conan.1412@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Joel, all,
>
> First, a big thank you from me! :-)
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Joel Madero <jmadero.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm
> doing
> > the following if there hasn't been action for 30+ days:
> > a. If it's stated that the bug was fixed in a recent release, I'm putting
> > RESOLVED with a comment that if it's not for the author or someone else
> to
> > open it back up
>
> If there is an explicit fix linked / posted, it's good to use FIXED.
> If not, that is the bug is just not reproducible with recent release,
> we prefer WORKSFORME instead.
>
> > 3. If it's confirmed by other people I'm changing it to confirmed
>
> Could you please give some details about this "confirmed"? Because we
> don't have an explicit "confirmed", we just change UNCONFIRMED to NEW.
>
> Anyway, these process / rules / ... could be changed if / when
> appropriate, of course.
>
> And yes, the "we" here is now including you, Joel. :-)
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Korrawit Pruegsanusak