Nils Philippsen wrote, at 02/26/2008 07:16 PM +9:00: > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:05 -0500, Jon Stanley wrote: >> When a reporter enters a bug, the report automatically starts out in a >> NEW state. The triage team will be primarily looking at bugs in this >> state. From this state, the triage team can either change the status >> to ASSIGNED (which indicates that the bug is well defined and >> triaged), or use the NEEDINFO state to request additional information >> from the reporter, or close the bug (either as a duplicate of an >> existing one, or using other closure reasons - CANTFIX for problems >> with proprietary drivers or kernels that have such drivers loaded, for >> example). >> >> The ASSIGNED state is a state that has a new meaning - it used to mean >> that the bug was actually assigned to a person. Instead, it now means >> that the bug is capable of being worked on by a maintainer - i.e. the >> triage team believes that this is a complete, actionable bug - i.e. >> with a stack trace for a crasher, various log files for other >> components, complete AVC message for SELinux stuff, etc. > > IMO this is bad, as we don't differentiate between "this is a bug" and > "someone is actually working on it" then; ASSIGNED should mean what it > says, that a bug is assigned to a person or group of persons to work on > it. Perhaps another state (TRIAGED, VERIFIED?) should be > introduced/re-used for that. > > Nils +1. There are not a few cases where we have to discuss to whom a reported bug should be "assign"ed, i.e. the bug must be investigated before we can "assign" the one to someone. And I think that the current meaning of "ASSIGNED" is what _reporters_ expect. Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
