The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:48:36PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> >This would lend support to using "DEFERRED".
> >Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments. For right now, I'm going to
> >leave all the bugs in NEEDINFO state while I reflect on everything.
> I disagree.  DEFERRED == PROCRASTINATED_WITH_NO_ACTUAL_TARGET

Well, to be blunt, as not- at -redhat, that kinda feels like the honest thing
to be saying for a lot of these bugs.

> If something is going to be done, it should be left open, and
> assigned to an active target tracking bug, such as FC4Target,
> FC5Target, etc. and an explicit "goal" defined for that target.

This would clearly be *better*, but are there resources to do it? Or the
commitment?


[...]
> "DEFERRED" essentially amounts to "indefinitely procrastinated
> with no goal or solid decision being made".  Our team have
> specifically been avoiding such indecision as much as possible
> for the last 6 months or so, trying to make solid decisions
> with each phase of a bug's life, to both reduce the active bug
> list, and to reduce the lifespan of bugs to a minimum.

And if I remember right without doing a bunch of bugzilla searches right
now, there are few if any pre-FC3 xorg.org or xgl-maint at redhat.com-assigned
bugs in open or "limbo" states. And only a handful for FC3. So assuming
that's the team you're talking about, awesome job -- and it lends a lot of
credibility to what you're saying.



-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 81 degrees Fahrenheit.