kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> maxb@tigris.org writes:
>> [Additional comments from maxb@tigris.org Fri Apr 22 06:57:18 -0700 2005]
>> Alexander,
>>
>> A *big* thankyou for taking this on, and a small note about how we
>> use the issue tracker - we do not make any use of the CLOSED status
>> - we leave our completed issues with status == RESOLVED.
>>
>> Reopening this one to re-resolve to RESOLVED.
>
> Hmmm. You're definitely right about our current practice; but why do
> we not use CLOSED? I think it's an accident of the issue tracker
> interface. The last thing we do with an issue is click
>
> "Resolved - STATE"
>
> where STATE is one of FIXED, INVALID, WORKSFORME, etc. Then the issue
> goes away from our usual summary listings, and we never see it
> again. If there were an opportunity to mark it as closed on the spot,
> we'd probably take it.
>
> So, is there any problem marking something as CLOSED? Or is
> consistency more important here?
Consistency is definitely important.
What would the difference between RESOLVED and CLOSED be?
I suspect that it is intended for environments in which issues get confirmed
CLOSED by a seperate QA team after they have been RESOLVED by the
developers.
In our current workflow, we simply do not have any interesting piece of
state that RESOLVED versus CLOSED could be used to track.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 22 20:28:05 2005