Christopher Beland wrote:
(Regarding https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/How_to_Triage )
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 13:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure it's a good idea for the triager to do the work of
splitting a report which actually deals with multiple issues up into
separate reports. The problem is that then the triager becomes the
'reporter', and it won't be clear to the maintainer that the real
reporter is actually some guy on the CC list. This could lead to
confusion. I'd prefer to put the onus on the reporter to split the
issues up.
I was wondering whether cloning a bug would maintain the reporter? If
Is "clone" like "fork?" Do you want two (or more) threads of discussion.
An alternative to my previous suggestion might be a subordinate bug,
"this also occurs in ...." The parent bug cannot be closed (the software
won't allow it) until all subordinate bugs are fixed too.
It might be that a bug report reflecting on F10 might be prompted to a
parent, that points to F10 and any where else it occurrs. The F10
subordinate bug could then be closed.
Discussion should be against the parent, and the original reporter
should be kept informed of progress.
not, then it's probably best for the reporter to file a new bug, unless
the triager can reproduce the problem.
Er, the reporter has a problem in F10. Isn't it expecting a bit much of
a reporter to install and test on RHEL[1] xx, Rawhide and anything else
you can think of?
An _experienced_ triager could take a punt that "This might occur in ...."
1. yes, I know _this_ is Fedora. I can't help thinking RHEL matters too,
because the bugs database is shared/
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
