Timeline for Turn away a bug if no reproducible test case exists?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2013 at 9:20 | comment | added | magma | "my car is making an odd noise, sometimes". | |
| Mar 25, 2011 at 1:26 | comment | added | Rook | The "head in the sand" part is a little misplaced. It means ignoring something that is obviously there. | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 23:04 | comment | added | Satanicpuppy | Seriously? "I had a bug, and I can't replicate it! Fix it!!!" And your response is to do...what? If it can't be replicated, by the customer or the programming staff, how can it be fixed? | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 22:19 | comment | added | JohnFx | @Jesse McCulloch - This is why bugs have priorities. I'd argue that if the impact is low, the customer isn't complaining, and it is rare enough to be hard to reproduce you accept the bug, but de-prioritize it. | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 21:14 | comment | added | Jesse McCulloch | I agree with your example, but it sounds like the customer can't reproduce it either. Does this mean the bug does not exist? No, of course not. But should one spend time and energy on a bug that nobody, including the customer, can reproduce? Not in my book.... | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 20:11 | comment | added | zzzzBov | and you never know when someone else will find a related bug that is reproducible. | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 19:39 | history | edited | Darknight | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2011 at 16:03 | history | answered | Darknight | CC BY-SA 2.5 |