On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote: >>> +1 to rename it “test needed” >>> +1 to remove it > > I meant either one would be an improvement. +1 to remove it Let's remove it first, an then decide if another stage is necessary. The problems with "unit test needed" is that 1. It is not clear whether unit tests should be written before or after a patch and thus once a bug is acknowledged as valid, what an appropriate stage should be. 2. For a bug that needs confirmation as being reproducible, it suggests that familiarity with unit test framework in necessary to move the issue forward. In fact, in many cases a short stand-alone script is more helpful than a Lib/test patch. I think "patch needed" is a good enough first stage. For bugs it should be set when there is a rough consensus that the behavior is a bug and for RFEs, it should be set when a decision to include cannot be made without an implementation. While there is no agreement on whether the bug is valid or whether an RFE makes any sense, the stage can stay undefined.
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