Bugzilla semantics: marking bugs as triaged

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 13:15 +0200, Niels Haase wrote:

> I'm also not quite sure, if I understand the discussion at all. Maybe
> someone can be so nice to correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> The main problem is the spam that the developer reached from bugzilla
> while triaging of the bugs is ongoing by the bugzappers.

No, it's not. That's probably a less important issue. The main sticking
point is that several development groups have said they use ASSIGNED to
mean that a bug has been accepted for work by a particular member of the
development group, which differs significantly from the 'official'
definition of ASSIGNED, in the triage workflow. This means those groups
cannot really work with the current triage workflow. That's the main
problem we're trying to address.

> What make sense for me is, to changed the behaviour to use the Triaged
> keyword to mark the bug as "done" for the triaged afford and leave it
> as NEW. The maintainer can now ASSIGN the bug to a list or himself.
> Witch will result in one more stage. This make it for my opinion
> easier to see if the bug is currently under development by the
> maintainer.
> 
> The work flow maybe can look like this:
> Bug is NEW, triage get started, if the triage is done, set the
> "Triaged" keyword, leave the bug as NEW. Now the maintainer need to
> ASSIGN the bug (to himself or a list), not the bugzapper any more.

This is exactly one of the current proposals, yes. One of the main
questions being whether we do this only going forward, or try to 'fix'
existing bugs to have the Triaged keyword where appropriate.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net