[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: How to Triage: Draft posted on wiki

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 11:20 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
> There is a new draft posted at:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/How_to_Triage

This is excellent - thanks, Chris.

Some notes:

I'm not sure it's a good idea for the triager to do the work of
splitting a report which actually deals with multiple issues up into
separate reports. The problem is that then the triager becomes the
'reporter', and it won't be clear to the maintainer that the real
reporter is actually some guy on the CC list. This could lead to
confusion. I'd prefer to put the onus on the reporter to split the
issues up.

Generally, this draft does not reference the actual use of the
GreaseMonkey triage script at all. It would be best for each point at
which a definite action can take place to mention both what to do
manually, and - if there is one - what GreaseMonkey script button to
use. E.g. it shouldn't just say that, once the report is complete, you
set it to ASSIGNED, but that you can click the script's Triaged button
to do the work for you.

I'm not sure about the 'how to handle bugs in multiple versions'
section. This is a problem it's impossible to solve gracefully in
Bugzilla, but we should do the best we can. I've found it's difficult to
handle bugs in multiple versions in a single report - people will get
annoyed if a significant issue is reported in both 10 and Rawhide, for
e.g., and fixed in Rawhide then marked as fixed, but never fixed in 10,
and there's no way to keep this active in Bugzilla.

The best approach IMHO is separate reports for separate releases; it's
pretty crappy, but the least bad. This is something we can discuss,
though. What does everyone else think?

I'm not sure about the 'optional steps' bit. It's a bit of a weird
organization. I don't think 'is it an upstream bug?' is optional at all,
to start with.

The NEEDINFO section needs to explicitly complete the loop by saying
that, after marking NEEDINFO, you should follow the progress on the bug
and complete the triage on it or close it as insufficient info, as
required. The triager's job is not done once a bug is marked NEEDINFO.

well, that's most of my comments for now :) wdyt? I can adjust the draft
with my proposed changes, if you like.
Adam Williamson <awilliam redhat com>
Red Hat

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]