#221: Reduce Blocker Bug Review Meeting Length
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: tflink | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 16
Component: Trac | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by tflink):
Yeah, I agree that the whiteboard method is not optimal but I'm not sure
we could get much more hammered out and added to bugzilla in time for F16.
Assuming that we start using a process like this, it would probably be
good to start using flags or keywords instead of the whiteboard at some
point but until we get everything streamlined, I think it would be better
to wait. We could plan on that for the F17 timeframe, though.
I'm not as concerned with typos right now. In general, I'm all for
reducing possible human error but I can only remember one case of a
mistyped keyword causing problems for F15 and I think it would be a
manageable drawback for now.
As far as the keywords to use are concerned, two forms come to mind:
* !BlockerProcessed
* !BlockerReady
Of the two, I think that I like !BlockerReady better since it indicates
that more work needs to be done.
Another potential issue is the difference between blockers and NTH. While
the process is pretty much the same for both, I can see how some human
confusion could result from using a keyword with "blocker" in it for NTH
bugs. I suppose that adding NTHReady might help that potential confusion
but in all reality, how often are people unfamiliar with the process going
to be using the keyword?
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/221#comment:3>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
