Jon Stanley wrote:
1) Reporter files a bug report, it originates in NEW state
Can we renamed this state to UNCONFIRMED?
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
Wouldn't a state like TRIAGED be more meaningful then? ASSIGNED frequently is assumed to be assuming ownership by the maintainers.
4) Once a developer has taken responsibility for a bug and is actively working on it, the state transitions to ON_DEV.
If ASSIGNED is renamed to TRIAGED, then this state can be known as ASSIGNED instead.
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).
I believe bugzilla folks are recommending the usage of flags over blocker bugs.
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.
Would a stock message be send to the bug reporters when closing bugs? Would a separate Fedora page in bugzilla.redhat.com be useful? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
