Till Maas said the following on 01/08/2008 07:36 AM Pacific Time:
On Sun January 6 2008, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Jan 6, 2008 12:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there a preference on which version number(s) should be used if a
problem exists in more than one version? Is it documented somewhere?
One bug == one problem with one version. Use the clone feature of
Bugzilla (IMO, we need to solidify this at FUDcon - adding to my list
at [1]. Anyone should feel free to edit this.
Imho having a bug cloned up to four times is too obfuscating / unclear, but
having another mechanism to track for which releases a bug is there would be
nice, e.g. additional flags:
You mean "fixed in rawhide" doesn't help? ;-)
fixedF7
fixedF8
fixedRawhide
An interesting idea, but I think it would be better to be able to have
more specific "closed--resolved in" information vs. more flags.
"?" unfixed
"-" wontfix
"+" fixed
" " unclear, whether it needs to be fixed.
This is redundant and the same as the closed states we already have.
Then when F9 is released and the bug is still open:
copy status from fixedRawhide to fixedF9
One month later, when F7 is EOL:
remove fixedF7 flag.
In case now all flags are "+" or "-", e.g. because the issue was fixed in F8
and F9 / Rawhide, close the bug with an explanation, that one needs to update
the release to fix the bug.
Who is going to be the flag person--more triagers?
Opposite to cloning bugs, this would keep the discussion of the bug in one bug
reports instead of possibly splitting it through differen reports. Another
possibility would be to use keywords, e.g. FixedF7 UnfixedF7 WontfixF7.
This would even work without someone needing to reconfigure Bugzilla.
This seems like the most sane idea to me :) Or one of the whiteboard
fields, except that whiteboard fields do not do any data validation.
John
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
