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

Re: Fedora bug triage - workflow proposal

On Tue January 15 2008, Jon Stanley wrote:

> 4)  Once a developer has taken responsibility for a bug and is
> actively working on it, the state transitions to ON_DEV.

This status is not mentioned in [1], will this be changed when this workflow 
is accepted?

> Note that at any step of the above process, the maintainer can "fast
> track" the bug, and change it to ASSIGNED.  The triage team is not
> going to look at bugs that are not in NEW or NEEDINFO state.  On the
> flip side of that, it is not a maintainer's responsibility to look at
> bugs that are in NEW any longer.  They can focus their energy on the
> bugs that are ASSIGNED to them.

I guess the triage team should also look at REOPENED bugs, e.g. when they 
where closed because of lack from NEEDINFO.

> It was also decided that when a bug is in NEEDINFO for one month, it
> will be closed.  Maintainers would need to realize that putting a bug
> in NEEDINFO is putting it on the fast track for closure.

It should be distinguished, from who information is required. E.g. when it is 
not NEEDINFO_REPORTER, closing it after one month would not help. 

> I think that's all that I have to say on this topic right now, let me
> know if I'm missing anything or this is complete hogwash :)

I like this workflow.


[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=bug_status.html#verified

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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