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

Re: Fedora bug triage - workflow proposal



On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 16:36 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 4:21 PM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs clemson edu> wrote:
> 
> > (I'm usually just a lurker on discussions like this, but I couldn't
> > resist.)
> >
> > NEW -> CONFIRMED -> ASSIGNED ?
> 
> Got some word on this off-list - it is a non-trivial endeavor to add
> states, it adds nothing to the workflow.  Let's not get into a
> discussion here whereby we're arguing over what color the bike shed
> is...to quote:
> ...
> 
> In Denmark we call it "setting your fingerprint".  It is about
> personal pride and prestige, it is about being able to point somewhere
> and say "There!  *I* did that."  It is a strong trait in politicians,
> but present in most people given the chance.  Just think about
> footsteps in wet cement.

I don't have a battlebot (can't say dog anymore) in this fight.  But I
do think it's important to have statuses that convey to the common user
some real information about state of the bug.  Initiates (such as
maintainers and readers of this list) may easily understand that
ASSIGNED is a symbol with a meaning that is not intuitive (and in
particular doesn't mean that somebody is responsible), but a "normal"
user who was not privy to this discussion will not understand that.
You'll spend a lot of time dealing with the frustrations of such users
and you'll create a lot of frustrated users and animosity toward
maintainers--more than necessary.

> 
> </quote>
> 
> 
-- 
                Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs


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