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

Re: Fedora bug workflow - process change

Jon Stanley wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Nils Philippsen <nphilipp 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.


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