[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: Advocating periodic releases

Diego Biurrun diego
Mon Oct 16 14:52:13 CEST 2006

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:27:17AM -0400, Dana Hudes wrote:
> V?ctor Paesa wrote:
> >>Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>    
> >>>theres no closed state in my proposal, and i also see no sense in one
> >>>      
> >>Of course you need a closed state. A bug is closed when it is fixed and
> >>confirmed fixed and committed etc.  -- or confirmed that its a
> >>duplicate, not a bug, etc. Closed is the final state which confirms the
> >>resolution -- and should not be done by assigned developer who made
> >>resolution. The original requester can close a bug too.
> >>    
> >>>[...]
> >
> >You're asuming that there's just one final state, but IMHO
> >"duplicate", "not a bug", "confirmed fixed", etc are very
> >valid final states, and they convey more info than "closed".
> >
> "closed" is the state which confirms the resolution is correct. An 
> alternative next state after "fixed" etc. is to re-open it again.

This is where Bugzilla differentiates between status and resolution.  If
a bug is marked as RESOLVED [FIXED|WONTFIX|INVALID|..] it can still be
marked as VERIFIED [FIXED|WONTFIX|INVALID|..].  AFAICT similar states
are avaible in many issue tracking systems.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list