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

Re: Bug Triage workflow for F13 and beyond



On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 11:39 -0500, TK009 wrote:

> Till,
> 
> I don't have any experience with upstream release monitoring, NEW, FutureFeature, Triaged would be correct for continuity. However, if people are used to ASSIGNED would making this change be a benefit or cause confusion?
> 
> The bugzappers made the change because there was a benefit in terms of the bugzappers and maintainers/developers working relationship. Maybe I am thinking on this harder than it needs but without experience with upstream release monitoring I can't say this change brings any benefit other than continuity.
> You would probably know best the pros and cons this change would have and whether you should implement it for your project.
> 
> Maybe Adam will have a different take but those are my initial thoughts.

Well, we've been referring to this as the 'semantics' change for a
while. The semantics of the change are that ASSIGNED should be 'owned'
by the package maintainer(s); they use it for whatever purpose is
appropriate to them. That's how it's described on the updated lifecycle
page. Following that logic, it doesn't make sense even for FEver to set
ASSIGNED when reporting bugs, as that is usurping the privilege of the
maintainer(s). Fr'instance, for a package with multiple maintainers,
they may only want to set the bug to ASSIGNED after picking one
particular maintainer to be responsible for the version update.

-- 
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]