dormant bugs and our perception

Luke Macken lmacken at redhat.com
Thu Jan 3 02:25:03 UTC 2008


On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:24:49PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 1:14 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Unlike others that have posted here, I am less optimistic that we can
> > viably review and address all 13,000+ open bugs.  We need to do
> > something drastic to clear the deck and start a process that insures
> > that we don't end up in this hole again.  I think this huge backlog is
> > one of the biggest psychological de-motivators we have!
> 
> I think you are right about clearing the deck as part of a re-launch
> for a triaging inititive.
> 
> I also think that now that we have bodhi and the bugs interfaces to
> compliment what we have in bugzilla we have more to work with in terms
> of workflow flexibility for different groups of people
> (users,developers,triagers).
> 
> Is there a way to possibly group bugs by SIG? So we can have specific
> triagers associated with SIGs. triagers as a group are a team, but
> then they also act as a liaison to each SIG which controls the
> packaging and development of related of packages.  That way SIGs might
> advertise their triager role to new contributors as a starting point,
> but make a commitment to mentoring those people so that in 6 months
> those people move on to handling more advanced roles in the SIG such
> as package maintainer, and new triagers are found for the entry level
> position.

For those who haven't realized it yet:  Fedora development does not scale.
This won't change until we move away from our 1-to-1/1-to-many package
maintainership model.  IMO, we need groups of people maintaining groups of
packages.  SIGs are a nice idea in theory, but have yet to be fully wielded.

A great example of this concept in action can be found within the gentoo 
community[0] 

AFAIK, we have a few groups of maintainers that handle bugs, ie:
{anaconda,kernel,gecko}-maint, but I'm unaware of any policy/procedures
behind them.  Having these groups per-SIG would definitely help get more eyes
on our bugs, especially if we can allow for these sub-communities to thrive.

It also sounds like Will's QA Beats[1] have the same general idea behind it.
Instead of encapsulating people at the bugzilla/QA level, why not form these
groups at the distro-level, to allow for team-based: packaging, bug triaging,
QA, docs, etc.. ?

Thoughts?

luke

[0]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/
[1]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Beats
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20080102/ded9b9cc/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list