Xyzzy wrote:Heh, I feel somewhat responsible for the above post
Xyzzy wrote:If we want enforce some defect workflow, we should set up some defect management system; first link in Google http://www.laatuk.com/tools/defect_track_tools.html. It is really easier in operation and less cumbersome than forum-based.
Xyzzy wrote:Veryfying by user who reported- I think it would not work and it is not necessary. Unneeded waiting, ovedue checks etc. Checking in b1- I am not sure, this (veryfying in earlier version) is not a common practice. (Edit: OK, there is regression testing, but it is something a bit different anyway.) If bug happens only for some users, this should be detected in error definition stage.
Xyzzy wrote:Bugs should also contain detailed, distinct procedure to reproduce bug. All error reporting and verification should be run with deleted xnview.ini, except for the cases related to .ini file of course.
So, who's going to set up some DMS?
Xyzzy wrote:It you don't mind, I will continue to work my way, but adding "for me" phrase.
Xyzzy wrote:Edit: Oh yes, new problems should be reported in new post, sorry for that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest