Interesting comments

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Thu Mar 5 17:22:49 UTC 2009

On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 02:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I've seen similar threads before. The thing I generally take out of
> > them, which I really tried to get MDV bug triagers to buy into, is
> > follow up. Triaging isn't a drive-by operation, you have to follow up
> > the bug. You really should be in CC for any bug you triage.

> I think both are really needed. Of course there needs to be an active
> triager, ideally part of the relevant SIG like SMParrish a.k.a. tuxbrewr
> for KDE, who monitors the bugs. But sometimes fly-by operations can be
> useful too, e.g. reassigning all the bugs incorrectly filed against 0xFFFF
> to the correct component. There's no way they'll be handled if the
> maintainer who should fix them is not even CCed, so reassigning them is
> important. Plus, getting the bug reassigned to the correct component will
> also CC the triager(s) with the domain expertise if they're on
> watchbugzilla (as for KDE) or use a setup like the xgl-maint mailing list
> used by the X11 folks. While I'm primarily a packager and developer, not a
> triager, I've sometimes helped with such one-time operations (like the
> 0xFFFF one), which points out an important point: one-time triaging can be
> done by people who are not dedicated to triaging (e.g. maintainers are
> often the best qualified for this kind of operations, but other volunteers
> can be helpful too). But of course it's no substitute for the work our
> dedicated triagers are doing! (And a big Thank You for that!)

You're absolutely right, indeed. I was thinking only in terms of one
work flow (initial triaging of newly filed bugs), and should have
clarified that. Indeed we have other workflows which are essentially
drive-by, and it makes perfect sense that way. Thanks for the
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list