Bug triage, or spam?

[Jan Zerebecki]

I'm not sure there is a agreement what some things here mean. The
following is my understanding of things, please correct me or
state differing understanding:

triage bugs: Make sure the bug is properly filed, has enough
information and possibly uncover the cause (e.g. regression
testing, finding where a NULL that causes a crash inside the
application comes from). This also includes marking a bug
resolved,fixed or closed or whatever, but the prior thing is more
important because it makes it easier to fix.

resolved,fixed: I only mark bugs where I'm confident that they
are really fixed as this. So if I need to ask the reporter or
some user if it now works for them I do this before resolving it.
I think I never "closed" a bug.

To detect e.g. resolved bugs with new comments (e.g. requesting
reopen) I run a query for changed bugs (where I made a comment)
since last date up to which I queried this (I noted that down)
and e.g. yesterday. Closing bugs doesn't help here either as they
could be closed in error, so someone would still want to request
those to be reopened.

So is someone really using the "closed" status (not in the sense
that they set it but e.g. use it in queries)?

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 05:36:45PM -0500, Tom Spear wrote:
> So I was closing bugs that were
> invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme so that they wouldnt show in the
> lists of resolved bugs, so its less I have to sort thru....

Does closed convey any more meaning than resolved as
invalid/abandoned/dupe/worksforme? I mean who would mark a bug as
resolved if that is not the conclusion and not reopen when that
was done in error? So isn't closing perhaps something we _really_
want to avoid doing too prematurely? Perhaps something we only do
every major release ( like 0.9 ). Otherwise it looses it's
meaning as "this is something we never ever need to look at".


Jan