Re: verification and bulk edit [Re: Unverified issues?]

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:49:07PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> >It matches the theory.  In practice, I've been startled quite a few
> >times when bug squad members not just verified the commit to be present
> >but also reported back when it turned out that the claimed functionality
> >did not actually accompany the commit.

Well, it's nice to have pleasant surprises?  :)

> Graham and I used to debate this.  His view was that all that is
> required of Bug Squad members is to verify that a claimed fix was
> committed.

Don't forget that using the issue tracker for patch submission is
a bit of a hack.  It was added because we were losing too many
patches.

If an issue is actual bug report, i.e. contains a minimal example,
then of course the bug squad member should check that the minimal
example no longer produces the flawed graphical output.  I just
don't think it's worth inventing a lot of extra work for
patch-only issues.

> I do think that claimed fixes to real bugs should have a tiny
> example, and the bug squad should confirm that the tiny example
> no longer fails.  This could argue for a more rigorous approach
> to bug acceptance: no example, no report.

Don't we already have a "no example, no report" policy for bugs?!
We certainly should.

- Graham