Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to developers

[Leslie Satenstein]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Poelstra" <poelstra at redhat.com>
To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to 
developers

> Adam Williamson said the following on 04/02/2009 01:29 PM 
Pacific Time:
>> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 21:22 -0700, John Poelstra 
wrote:
>> 
>>>> Hi, -devel-list 
folks!
>>>>
>>>> We in the Bugzappers team (part 
of the QA group) are working to revise
>>>> our Wiki space, and 
as part of that, various questions have arisen with
>>>> regards 
to Bugzilla procedures. A lot of the same issues have come up 
on
>>>> this list in the recent 
past.
>>>>
>>>> In general, it seems like Fedora 
doesn't really have a properly defined
>>>> procedure for exactly 
how a bug should flow. Every maintainer, reporter
>>>> and 
triager has a slightly different idea of what each status or
>>>> 
resolution or keyword means, and when and by whom they should 
be
>>>> applied.
>>> I think you are overstating a 
problem that I'm not sure exists.  We have 
>>> defined the states 
here:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow
>>> 
Why not improve on what is there?
>> 
>>> I think it is 
great you want to tackle and clarify these things.  Having 
>>> gone 
through a round myself with this process I guess I learned that 
>>> 
some ambiguity wasn't as harmful as I first thought. :)
>> 
>> 
You're right, of course. Somehow I'd forgotten about that flow.
>> 

>> So, I will revise the draft substantially. :) Here's my quick 
thoughts:
>> 
>> The obvious bit of hand-waviness in the 
graphic is the resolutions, we
>> don't define them (and it doesn't 
list some at all). DUPLICATE is
>> simple, and ERRATA and RAWHIDE are 
known: fixed bugs in official
>> releases are closed as ERRATA (should 
be done automatically), and fixed
>> bugs in Rawhide are closed as 
RAWHIDE (manually). Those we can write
>> down into that page without 
any discussion, I think.
>> 
>> We do, however, need to define 
what 'cantfix', 'wontfix', 'notabug',
>> and 'worksforme' are for. We 
should also explicitly state which
>> resolutions aren't used for 
Fedora (I think 'deferred', 'currentrelease'
>> and 'nextrelease' fit 
into this category) so they don't get used on
>> Fedora bugs by 
mistake.
> 
> Yes, I agree these were never clearly defined on the 
wiki page and I 
> can't remember why, though even now I'm wondering how 
important it is 
> that we use the right reason and what we would use it 
for.
> 
>> It would really be nice, in fact, if we could have 
Bugzilla only show
>> the statuses and resolutions appropriate to the 
product the bug is filed
>> on...not sure if that's possible, 
though.
> 
> I can ask the Red Hat bugzilla team about this.
> 

> John
> 
> 
>


In your schema for close, there is no indication that there should be or there is one more step, which is the return to originator (and perhaps others), with a notification that the bug is fixed, and ready for testing.

The end user is required to keep tabs for as long as the bug is open.

Would like email stating bug has been repaired, (if an advice has an email address).

------------------

Regards  
Leslie
 Leslie Satenstein
5752 Avenue Lockwood.
Cote St. Luc Montreal Quebec H4W 1Y9  Canada
voice:  514-369-1685    
mailto:lsatenstein at yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090403/ef4b2df3/attachment.htm>