Fedora bug workflow - process change

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>  Very much so I believe. If nobody is working on a bug, no activity on it
>>  means something hugely different from when somebody is supposed to work
>>  on it.
> 
> I personally have a query for bugs that I'm CC'ed on (which you should
> be CC'ed on any bugs that you triage - for the life of them) that have
> had no activity in 30 days.  I don't have this as part of the triage
> process, but maybe it should be.  I'm open to comments here - the
> point of this is good user experience, not introducing bureaucracy
> (although some of the latter is necessary to ensure the former).
> 
> The main reason behind the use of the states that we decided is that
> we wanted to launch this with the minimal amount of development and
> retooling necessary (i.e. none).  There is no such thing as an
> UNCONFIRMED state in b.r.c, as there is in say GNOME.  This was
> actually specifically removed, since having it would impact RHEL
> workflow (and you can't specify different initial states per product
> in the version of bugzilla used here).

Well, different "products" in bugzilla can have different needs. Can't 
bugzilla accommodate that?

ASSIGNED definitely is confusing to end users who would assume ASSIGNED 
to mean that is someone is working on it.

Rahul