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

Re: Fedora bug workflow - process change

Nils Philippsen wrote, at 02/26/2008 07:16 PM +9:00:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:05 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
>>  When a reporter enters a bug, the report automatically starts out in a
>>  NEW state. The triage team will be primarily looking at bugs in this
>>  state. From this state, the triage team can either change the status
>>  to ASSIGNED (which indicates that the bug is well defined and
>>  triaged), or use the NEEDINFO state to request additional information
>>  from the reporter, or close the bug (either as a duplicate of an
>>  existing one, or using other closure reasons - CANTFIX for problems
>>  with proprietary drivers or kernels that have such drivers loaded, for
>>  example).
>>  The ASSIGNED state is a state that has a new meaning - it used to mean
>>  that the bug was actually assigned to a person. Instead, it now means
>>  that the bug is capable of being worked on by a maintainer - i.e. the
>>  triage team believes that this is a complete, actionable bug - i.e.
>>  with a stack trace for a crasher, various log files for other
>>  components, complete AVC message for SELinux stuff, etc.
> IMO this is bad, as we don't differentiate between "this is a bug" and
> "someone is actually working on it" then; ASSIGNED should mean what it
> says, that a bug is assigned to a person or group of persons to work on
> it. Perhaps another state (TRIAGED, VERIFIED?) should be
> introduced/re-used for that.
> Nils


There are not a few cases where we have to discuss to whom
a reported bug should be "assign"ed, i.e. the bug must be investigated
before we can "assign" the one to someone. And I think that
the current meaning of "ASSIGNED" is what _reporters_  expect.


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