Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of olaf-openoffice@gmx.de
 designates 213.165.64.23 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <5059C01C.4030206@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:52:44 +0200
From: "O.Felka" <olaf-openoffice@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de;
 rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [QA] Quality of bug reports and QA in bugzilla
References: <5059B0C7.2060509@t-online.de> <5059B96B.2090705@gmx.de>
 <20120919123453.GB6678@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20120919123453.GB6678@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 19.09.2012 14:34, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>
>>> Your own new issue should be UNCONFIRMED. Someone else should confirm
>>> your issue, if possible on a different operating system.
>>

> I agree with Oliver, the default status should be set to UNCONFIRMED
> even if the reporter has canconfirm privileges. IMHO "confirmed" means
> "confirmed by some else".
>

We have a lot of professional QA folks here: They know how to verify 
their findings and issues. That's a lot of overhead if someone has to 
re-test to confirm a well tested bug.
So we should trust the QA who has 'canconfirm' privileges.

Regards,
Olaf