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

[Jerry Amundson]

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:37 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> Jerry Amundson said the following on 10/06/2008 01:49 PM Pacific Time:
>> 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.

Good to know. Thanks.

> 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.

+1 for TRIAGED.

> 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.

Can VERIFIED fit on BSWF image and/or text, or is not needed in the
BugZapper context?
If the latter, I think the item "The VERIFIED bug state is not used by
Fedora." should be removed.

jerry

-- 
There's plenty of youth in America - it's time we find the "fountain of smart".