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?

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

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

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.