Well, it was a great session at FUDCon. A lot came out of it, and I'm going to put some of them down here. The work flow suggested below I'd a FESco vote on, since it really affects you guys. This work flow was discussed between myself, John Poelstra, and Will Woods at the Sunday hackfest, and we agree that this is the correct way to move forward, however, we want community input and buy-in on this, since it has pretty far-reaching consequences. Here is the lifecycle of a bug: 1) Reporter files a bug report, it originates in NEW state 2) Triage team looks at bug report, determines if dupe or insufficient information exists to solve it. If there is not enough information in the bug, then triage team puts the bug in NEEDINFO. As you will see below, this state has a finite life cycle associated with it. 3) Assuming bug survives through the triage team, it changes state to ASSIGNED (triage team can put it in either NEEDINFO or CLOSED, as appropriate). Note that per the definition[1], ASSIGNED does not mean that someone has actually agreed to take action, simply that the issue is well defined and triaged accordingly 4) Once a developer has taken responsibility for a bug and is actively working on it, the state transitions to ON_DEV. 5) Once an update addressing a bug exists in Bodhi, and is pushed to updates-testing, the status automatically transitions to ON_QA 6) When the update is pushed to stable, Bodhi optionally closes the bug automatically. If the update does not auto-close the bug, it transitions to NEEDINFO_REPORTER, with a comment explaining that the update has been pushed to stable, and to update and test in the new release. Note that at any step of the above process, the maintainer can "fast track" the bug, and change it to ASSIGNED. The triage team is not going to look at bugs that are not in NEW or NEEDINFO state. On the flip side of that, it is not a maintainer's responsibility to look at bugs that are in NEW any longer. They can focus their energy on the bugs that are ASSIGNED to them. Also, maintainers should not be allowed to set priority on bugs. Setting severity is fine. Only QA or releng should set priorities. This allows us to look at things in a sane manner (which is impossible now since severity and priority fields come from /dev/urandom seemingly), and possibly lessen the reliance on blocker bugs (though blockers are useful in their own right, so don't think that we are going to eliminate them any time soon). It was also decided that when a bug is in NEEDINFO for one month, it will be closed. Maintainers would need to realize that putting a bug in NEEDINFO is putting it on the fast track for closure. I think that's all that I have to say on this topic right now, let me know if I'm missing anything or this is complete hogwash :) -Jon [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=bug_status.html#verified -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
