Bug Triage Recap 2008-09-30 + Meeting Reminder for tomorrow @ 1400 UTC

[John Poelstra]

Jerry Amundson said the following on 10/06/2008 01:49 PM Pacific Time:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> == NEW->ASSIGNED ==
>> * Some people believe a different way should be implemented to indicate that
>> a bug is ''triaged''
>> ** How many people is unclear
>> ** Issue a survey?
>> *
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2008-September/msg00493.html
>> * Alternatives:
>> *# new bugzilla state
>> *# new flag
>> *# use existing ''Triaged'' keyword
> 
> Nobody had Questions/Comments/Criticisms on my suggestion to use VERIFIED.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2008-September/msg00523.html
> 

Unfortunately VERIFIED has always been understood in the context of 
having "verified" that a bug is fixed so I don't think it is an option. 
   That is also the understood meaning for RHEL maintainers and would be 
confusing if they work on both Fedora and RHEL.

I'm leaning more towards the idea that the "Triaged" keyword makes the 
most sense because it doesn't disrupt the STATE change flow and simply 
adds meta data to bug.  This would also allow us to triage other 
components that actually remain in state of NEW until work begins.

So, who out there, feels that an additional keyword like "Triaged" would 
mess up their bugs? :)

NOTE: we are continuing to follow the triage work flow here: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow and will 
continue to do so.

John