Bug Triage (was Re: scheduled transactions make bad transact ions with 1.8.9 ?)

Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) volker at mail.nih.gov
Wed Jun 23 10:34:07 EDT 2004

> >>>
> > Would you prefer we start with oldest or newest unconfirmed bugs.  Maybe
> > each of us should start from different end.
> I don't have a preference.  Just being able to close out bugs that
> are no longer a factor, or bugs that cannot be reproduced... and pushing
> back bugs that don't have enough information..  and being able
> to reproduce bugs...  That would help significantly.
> If I can go to a bug and easily reproduce it, I can (generally) easily
> fix it.  Sometimes the reproduction part is the most challenging
> aspect!

I was thinking to look at the oldest bugs first hoping that most of those
could be closed out because they can not be reproduced in the newer
Maybe the easiest for now would be to one of us start from the top while the
other starts at the bottom or one takes the bugs with even bug numbers while
the other one looks at the odd ones.  I'm OK with any approach.

Here is a question that came up yesterday when I looked at a (randomly
selected) bug (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143992).
One could argue that the reported bug is a feature which doesn't need to be
addressed.  How should bugs like this be handled?  Should we merely state
that the behavior has been confirmed and leave it up to the developer to
decide what should be done?

-- Volker

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list