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

Re: Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to developers



On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> > 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:

I've revised my thinking on this again. It now seems to me that we don't
really need to discuss much. All we need to do is flesh out the existing
page to explain all the resolutions, and specifically state which
statuses and resolutions don't apply to Fedora, to avoid confusion with
things like 'NEXTRELEASE' and 'CURRENTRELEASE'.

The 'technical' fix - don't display statuses and resolutions which don't
apply to the product the bug is in - would be nice too, if we can get
it. I'll try and follow that up.

The only thing that still needs to be discussed is Priority and
Severity, as we genuinely don't currently have a policy or procedure for
those. So I'll write a new draft of a mail covering only that issue, and
revise the Wiki as outlined above.

Thanks all.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


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