Hi,
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 01:11 CEST, "Bjoern Michaelsen" <bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com>
wrote:
Bug states should support the workflow to get the bug fixed -- not the other
way around. OS crosschecking is irrelevant in more than 90% of cases for the
work of a dev to start working on it. While regression info is quite helpful,
very often it is provided already by the initial report even. Both are not
reasons for devs to punt on the issue solely because of this -- thus, because
bug states should support workflows and not the other way around, not to have
yet-another-state and just have devs assume a crossplatform non-regression by
default.
Regardless whether there is a separate status for "triaged" bugs or not, the
mentioned actions only involve QA, and no developer activity. Thanks for the
feedback, though, it's helpful to know what is worthwhile to spend time on.
My original point was that the keyword asking for developer advice should not
be restricted to UNCONFIRMED bugs if confirmed bugs don't have the
requirement of reproducibility by QA.
Nevertheless, I agree that effort is better spent elsewhere than pursuing
really obscure bugs, it seems to be something where careful prioritization is
important.
Cheers,
Aron
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.