Bug workflow page revised

[Allen Kistler]

Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 08:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> If the ON_QA state isn't meaningful for Fedora then this state machine
>>> probably needs some adjustment for that, but it's not insane on its
>>> own terms.
>> 
>> The ON_QA / FAILS_QA loop doesn't make too much sense for Fedora as
>> there is no paid QA group wired into this loop. 'QA' is the reporter. 
>> 
>> I think it should just be a simple setup as the reporter describes;
>> reporters should be allowed to set bugs back to ASSIGNED from MODIFIED.
> 
> Ug, sorry - I'm thinking too much about Rawhide here. The ON_QA loop is
> of course used for Fedora in stable release updates.
> 
> I think the question comes down to "should the onus / ability to return
> a bug to ASSIGNED when it fails testing be on the reporter or maintainer
> or both". Thoughts?


I know you had ON_QA in the flow diagram in the original post, so if 
you're adding it, adjust the following comments as appropriate.

My thoughts are to allow both maintainers and reporters to send a 
MODIFIED report back to ASSIGNED.

First, some maintainers might only check on reports in the ASSIGNED 
state.  The only way they know to keep working on a bug is if someone 
moves the report back to ASSIGNED for them.  It's anti-productive to 
prevent reporters from doing this.  Posting comments doesn't work for 
reasons that may include assignees setting email options to ignore comments.

Second, some reporters seem to figure that all they have to do is report 
bugs.  They never track or follow-up on even their own reports.  It's 
anti-productive to exclude maintainers from the management of the 
reports filed against their own components.