From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8771 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2000 15:39:48 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Apr 2000 15:39:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26000 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2000 15:39:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10472 Received: (qmail 25987 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2000 15:39:29 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000404153917.ZM20523@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:39:17 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200004041433.QAA00831@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Closing bugs (?)" (Apr 4, 4:33pm) References: <200004041433.QAA00831@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Closing bugs (?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 4, 4:33pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Closing bugs (?) } } Sourceforge supports the `fixed' and `closed' states. Hm, do we want } to leave it to one of the administrators to actually close a bug or } should the person who fixed (or tried to fix) it do that? } } And why this distinction? A bug can be closed without being fixed, i.e. "that's not a bug, it's a feature," or "seeming bug was caused by pilot error," etc. The way I've typically handled it with GNATS before is that the person who fixes the bug changes the state to "fixed" ("feedback" in GNATS), and then it's up to the administrator and/or the person who reported the bug to agree that it's fixed and change it to "closed". But maybe we don't need that much supervision, and maybe it's OK to leave a bug in the "fixed" state forever. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com