• monarch_dodra (6/6) Dec 14 2012 I have a whole list of bugs/issues that have since been corrected
• Simen Kjaeraas (5/11) Dec 14 2012 Verified fixed should be enough. Version number would be, pull number
• Brad Roberts (9/16) Dec 14 2012 The pattern we've been following for years is to mark them as resolved/f...
• monarch_dodra (5/27) Dec 14 2012 Alright, so basically, anything I have seen fixed I should close,

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

I have a whole list of bugs/issues that have since been corrected 
in 2.060alpha.

I was wondering when and how these were to be closed?

Am I supposed to wait for an official 2.061 first?

Do I have to prove it was fixed, or just a simple "verified 
fixed" comment enough?

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On 2012-47-14 12:12, monarch_dodra <monarchdodra gmail.com> wrote:

 I have a whole list of bugs/issues that have since been corrected in  
 2.060alpha.

 I was wondering when and how these were to be closed?

 Am I supposed to wait for an official 2.061 first?

 Do I have to prove it was fixed, or just a simple "verified fixed"  
 comment enough?

Verified fixed should be enough. Version number would be, pull number
would be even nicer. (but neither of those should be absolutely necessary)

-- 
Simen

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 12/14/2012 3:47 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
 I have a whole list of bugs/issues that have since been corrected in
2.060alpha.
 
 I was wondering when and how these were to be closed?
 
 Am I supposed to wait for an official 2.061 first?
 
 Do I have to prove it was fixed, or just a simple "verified fixed" comment
enough?

The pattern we've been following for years is to mark them as resolved/fixed at
the point of checkin of the fix.  Any
bug that's no longer reproducible becomes a judgement call.. either
resolved/worksforme or resolved/fixed.  If there's
reason to believe a specific change caused it to move from broken to fixed,
then fixed is more accurate.  If it was
never confirmed broken then worksforme is more accurate.

The more data you have the better, but it's not necessary to make a major time
investment.  The original reporter can
always reopen it and push back.

My 2 cents,
Brad

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 14 December 2012 at 18:42:24 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 12/14/2012 3:47 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
 I have a whole list of bugs/issues that have since been 
 corrected in 2.060alpha.
 
 I was wondering when and how these were to be closed?
 
 Am I supposed to wait for an official 2.061 first?
 
 Do I have to prove it was fixed, or just a simple "verified 
 fixed" comment enough?

 The pattern we've been following for years is to mark them as 
 resolved/fixed at the point of checkin of the fix.  Any
 bug that's no longer reproducible becomes a judgement call.. 
 either resolved/worksforme or resolved/fixed.  If there's
 reason to believe a specific change caused it to move from 
 broken to fixed, then fixed is more accurate.  If it was
 never confirmed broken then worksforme is more accurate.

 The more data you have the better, but it's not necessary to 
 make a major time investment.  The original reporter can
 always reopen it and push back.

 My 2 cents,
 Brad

Alright, so basically, anything I have seen fixed I should close, 
putting as much info about how/when it was fixed, and the 
rationale for the closure.

TY.