Matej Cepl <mcepl <at> redhat.com> writes:
> Less important but still IMHO interesting and relevant to our
> discussion is the distinction between 1) and 2). For me
> personally, while working on my Xorg bugs, this distinction is
> not particularly relevant (and bugs I triage should end in the
> state 2)), because I know from discussion with developers what
> kind of bugs each of them expects, and of course whenever in
> doubts what to do with a particular bug I could ask on IRC.
>
> Which leads me to the point, that for bug triager to be excellent
> it is crucially important to be part of the team of developers
> for the particular set of components.
Well, I see that working well for some teams, but not all teams in Fedora work
that way. How we deal with bugs within the KDE SIG is that we don't _assign_ a
bug to another developer, but instead a developer should _claim_ the bugs they
want to own (and the assignee who claimed the bug is supposed to work on it, so
we'll usually not touch bugs claimed by someone else). So how we used to work
is that we assigned the bugs to ourselves and set them to ASSIGNED when
claiming them. Important bugs are regularly brought up in the meetings to make
sure someone takes care of them and to check progress. Now that ASSIGNED has
been redefined, it will no longer be immediately clear whether the bug was just
set to ASSIGNED by a triager (and is still assigned to the default assignee) or
actually claimed by the assignee. We'll probably end up just using ON_DEV when
claiming bugs, I've put this up for discussion at the next meeting.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
