On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:54:04AM -0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I think it would be unnecessarily confusing to deviate from _both_ the
> existing Ubuntu bug tracking definition of "fixed" (Bugzilla) and the common
> usage of it in other open source projects.
In http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ the RESOLVED FIXED status+resolution is
used to indicate something that is fixed-in-CVS. The same is used for http://bugzilla.gnome.org/. The Python bugtracker (in sf.net) uses Fixed
to mean essentially the same thing.
Bugzilla's "normal" model is to use the VERIFIED and CLOSED statuses to
indicate what happens post-RCS-landing -- in http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ we use VERIFIED when someone tests a CVS
build and agrees that it is fixed, and CLOSED is when there is a version
released that includes that fix.
We're proposing using a simplified form of the Bugzilla model (omitting
a "Verified" status).
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:54:04AM -0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I think it would be unnecessarily confusing to deviate from _both_ the
> existing Ubuntu bug tracking definition of "fixed" (Bugzilla) and the common
> usage of it in other open source projects.
In http:// bugzilla. mozilla. org/ the RESOLVED FIXED status+resolution is bugzilla. gnome.org/. The Python bugtracker (in sf.net) uses Fixed
used to indicate something that is fixed-in-CVS. The same is used for
http://
to mean essentially the same thing.
Bugzilla's "normal" model is to use the VERIFIED and CLOSED statuses to bugzilla. mozilla. org/ we use VERIFIED when someone tests a CVS
indicate what happens post-RCS-landing -- in
http://
build and agrees that it is fixed, and CLOSED is when there is a version
released that includes that fix.
We're proposing using a simplified form of the Bugzilla model (omitting
a "Verified" status).