Bug triage, or spam?

[Tom Spear]

On 5/31/07, James Hawkins <truiken at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do read through all of your bug emails, which is exactly the
> problem, because I don't trust that you make the right decision on
> every bug, and in some cases I've had to go back and correct it.  That
> is the issue.

It has been a small number of cases..

> The statement still stands.  Resolved isn't resolved enough for you,
> but closed is...If a bug is marked resolved, I'm pretty sure it's
> resolved.

Obviously someone that commits patches to the upstream bugzilla tree
agrees with me, because otherwise, there either wouldnt be a resolved
option, OR there would be a close option on the bugs that are in any
state of open, which is something I have suggested before, to cut down
on list traffic.

> No one has problems with people correcting bugs that are marked
> incorrectly, but of the 30 or so bugs a day that you change, this case
> is a small amount.  If you *only* changed this class of bugs, then
> that would be fine.

I honestly dont see why it is such an inconvenience to you for me to
close the bugs that are marked resolved.  You read thru every one of
my emails because you dont trust my decisions, understandable, but if
you are so worried about my marking a bug wrongly, then maybe you
should stop developing, and strictly focus on helping clean up
bugzilla, or the inverse could be true, maybe you could just trust
that if I make a status change, it is the correct thing to do, and if
not, then let someone else, who does have more time on their hands,
catch it.  Like you said, it's a small amount of bugs that are marked
incorrectly. Of that percentage, I represent an even smaller amount,
and like I said, I dont blindly close bugs, I read the majority of the
comments, especially the ones toward the end, and the initial report,
and then make a change only when I am confident that it is the right
change to make..


-- 
Thanks

Tom