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