Re: Backlog proposals, now and future - Special Bug Triage meeting, 2008-03-12 17:00UTC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2008-03-11, 15:23 GMT, John Poelstra wrote:
> If someone cannot re-confirm the existence of a problem it is 
> better to close the bug and move on.  In my experience if the 
> problem occurs in a later version it will get reported again 
> and if it is important enough it will get fixed.  I would agree 
> this is not the most efficient or ideal scenario, but neither 
> is trying to search and fix 20,000 open bugs... the result if 
> we stay on our present course.

I totally agree with most of what you are saying, but as a bug 
triager (who just clears up backlog of now only 979 Xorg+gecko 
open bugs -- we were over 3,000 before) I would have to say that 
there is a lot of bug triaging which could help. Of course we 
should mercilessly close obsolete bugs, but there is a lot of 
stuff we can do even with the current bugs IMHO.

For some reasons which are not important in the moment I browsed 
yesterday through this list of all open bugs against 
NetworkManager -- http://tinyurl.com/2h84g8 I don't want to pick 
up on Dan, because I think he does great job as a developer, but 
it seems to me (and I don't understand NetworkManager to be sure 
about that), that he could use some good bug triaging for his 
bugs.  There seems to be a zillion of duplicates and (which is 
hard to tell without understanding the issues there) probably 
many bugs should be moved somewhere else (namely, kernel 
drivers). Of course, NM is a complicated program, but I don't 
think it should have 242 bugs opened.

Just to warn against any easy solutions to our 20,000 opened 
bugs.

Matěj

-- 
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: 
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux