I am done moving old bugs from Jitterbug to SF. There are still some new bugs being submitted to Jitterbug, which I'll need to move one at a time. In principle, it's okay to mark bugs as closed, as long as you are *sure* that the bug has been fixed. If you try to reproduce a bug on your system and can't, it's not clear that it has been fixed. It might be a platform-specific bug, for example. I would prefer it if you only closed bugs where you can point to the CVS checkin that fixed it. Whenever you fix a bug, you should add a test case to the regression test that would have caught the bug. Have you done that for any of the bugs you've marked as closed? You should also add a comment at any bug you're closing explaining why it is closed. It is good to assign bugs to people -- probably even if we end up playing hot potato for a while. If a bug is assigned to you, you should either try to fix it, diagnose it, or assign it to someone else. > I think overlooking a few bugs is better than overlooking all of > them because of the size of the list :P You seem to be arguing that the sheer number of bug reports bothers you and that it's better to have a shorter list of bugs regardless of whether they're actually fixed. Come on! I don't want to overlook any bugs. Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4