package shepherding

[Jef Spaleta]

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not creating a separate list of bugs outside of bugzilla > is
such a great idea

I concur. I would actually like to incorporate some of the structure
in the table template back into bugzilla if possible...
Example, having a field to link upstream bug reports/urls instead of
burying that linkage between fedora and upstream in comments.  And
perhaps work towards a summary view of this sort as a possible way to
view triaged bugzilla data. Taking a good look at the whats really in
the table, other than the upstream bugreport linkage field..all you
really need to do is use a few more keywords to be able to regenerate
this sort of summary report only from bugzilla data. 

And to be really clear, what i especially liked about the summary
template, is its potential to highlight issues that could use community
patch building/verification/review for low priority but nagging issues.
I already suckered notting into creating the PATCH keyword which i've
been trying to use for community patches that have had some confirmation
from the community that it works..sort of a 2 pair of eyes rule for
community supplied patches to bugreports.


> + Give package shepherds bugzilla permissions so they can 
> actually modify bugs.

That process is in place... finally, its just woefully inefficient. 
Since having the ability to get community editting rights, my goal has
been to get one or two people rights every week. I have not met that
goal for a variety of reasons, some of which are out of my control being
internal red hat communication issues.

> + Come up with a triage guide that explains to shepherds how they 
>    should:

Why re-invent the wheel... gnome's guide to triage works and I use as a
reference repeatedly in announcements. I'm tempted to just steal the
document and replace Gnome with Fedora.  That being said, its on my todo
list, right after i meet critical mass of community triage volunteers
who have bugzilla editting rights, so that I don't have to concentrate
what time i do have to spend just following up on other people's
attempts to identify bugs that need triage.
I want to get to the point where there are just enough people with
editting rights so i can sit back and watch them argue about the
details...and take notes.

> - Set the bug's priority/severity

Just want to comment on this, I've been in conversations with fedora
developers about these fields...and as far as i can tell these fields
are not used consistently by fedora developers...which makes its
difficult for triage to use effectively..so i'm inclined to ignore these
fields completely.

The rest of those bullet items, all have their own particular wrinkles
that the few of us who do have triage rights are trying to
wrap our heads around, and don't forget about the complication of legacy
thrown into the mix. I jokingly call legacy...downstream. Though i think
maybe PASSTHEBUCK or HOTPOTATO might make better keywords for bugs that
roll off in fedora legacy's general direction.

-jef"fedora developers are like information pinatas...you blindly poke
them hard a few times you get rewarded with information spewed out all
over the floor"spaleta