On Tue January 15 2008, Jon Stanley wrote: > 4) Once a developer has taken responsibility for a bug and is > actively working on it, the state transitions to ON_DEV. This status is not mentioned in [1], will this be changed when this workflow is accepted? > 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. I guess the triage team should also look at REOPENED bugs, e.g. when they where closed because of lack from NEEDINFO. > 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. It should be distinguished, from who information is required. E.g. when it is not NEEDINFO_REPORTER, closing it after one month would not help. > 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 :) I like this workflow. Regards, Till [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=bug_status.html#verified
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
