On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:50 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote: > After Adam's comments, I changed the advice for 2-in-1 bugs to point to > the stock reply (which asks reporters to do the split), and updated > that reply to be more polite and informative. > > So this leaves the following decisions to make at the meeting: > * "Option 1", "Option 2" or other text for "How to Handle Bugs in > Multiple Versions" section? I guess Option 1 seems to be mostly preferred, so I'm OK with that one. > * Should a check for bugs filed in upstream Bugzillas be mandatory? > * Should triagers decide whether a bug should be handled upstream or > by Fedora, or should this be left to package maintainers? I think we should probably discuss this with the maintainers rather than coming to a unilateral decision on it. > * Should NEW triagers be asked to do NEEDINFO updates in 30 and 60 > days if needed, or should this be left to triagers following the > NEEDINFO checklist? I think we should ask triagers to take responsibility for following up their own triaged bugs. We can have procedures to catch cases where this isn't done, but I'm really not a fan, as I've written, of drive-by triaging. > * After these issues are decided, is this draft ready to go live? > > Suggested improvements which might be implemented before or after > deployment: > * Add references to GreaseMonkey buttons in checklist instructions I'll do this later today, with reference to mcepl's shiny new generation script. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
