[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Which unresolved bugs block a release?



On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 20:34 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > What time? 
> I'll be available from 8u00 (CET / GMT +1) till 17u00  and maybe sometime in 
> the evening too.
> 
>  > Coordinate on #fedora-devel irc?
> +1

If you want to keep it on #fedora-devel that's fine - eventually I
suspect (hope?) that bug triaging will get too big to stay there without
drowning out normal -devel work. At that point, we should move to
#fedora-qa.

> 
> > Is there more info for people who would like to help?
> > 
> 
> Good question, for example what should we do with bugs like:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214864
> Assigned by reporter to reporter, no valid summary / description, most likely 
> caused by a messed up install, invalid component. Slam close?

Very yes. There's nothing to fix, hence the problem is solved.

> I say start with the newest bugs first, those contain much more low hanging 
> fruit, so I "vote" to work on this list coming friday:
> http://rdr.to/W9

Noted.

> Also an important question to ask ourselves is triage or fixing or both? I'm 
> quite good at debugging C-code (no race conditions please), and have already 
> fixed quite a few bugs. Now if we could combine a few triagers with a few 
> fixers on friday, that might work very well.

Triage + fixing is awesome but I can't speak for developers. There will
definitely be weekly triage sessions every Friday - at least US Eastern
business hours, when I'm around (~1400-2200UTC). If developers come and
help fix the low-hanging fruit, so much the better.

> >> This might be a good time to mention the recently-created
> >> fedora-qa-list:
> >> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-qa-list
> > 
> > Another list? :( Is that really needed? or couldn't discussions take
> > place here?
> > 
> 
> +1 +1 +1

> >> Further discussion of this topic should go there.
> > 
> > ok. I will after this I suppose. 
> > 
> 
> Please don't, -ETOOMANYLISTS.

Feh. This wasn't just a gratuitous "Hey let's make a new list!!"
decision - we decided this in January:

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-January/msg00104.html

Except nobody seems to be able to agree on whether we need more or less
lists, and what they should be named, and so on. I'm sick of discussing
whether we need new lists or not. 

Development is not the same as QA and I refuse to require
fedora-devel-list membership for the QA team. That's why they're
separate - to reduce apparent signal/noise problems and prevent people
who aren't developers from having to pick QA stuff out of 10,000 unread
development messages.

-w

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]