On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 19:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 18:56 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>
> > > We'd be interested in thoughts - negative, positive, whatever - on the
> > > idea. Thanks!
>
> > This has been discussed at length before. I believe the initial
> > reluctance was changing the set process for a handful of people that
> > wanted to do things differently and then trying to keep track of that.
> > One major reason for not changing the state definitions was that the
> > Fedora usage of the bug states was the same as RHEL.
> >
> > At one time I thought the "keyword" approach was a good idea and it
> > still seems to make a lot of good sense... I can't remember why we
> > didn't move forward with it, but as you explain, it seems like a good
> > compromise.
>
> I think it feels like a bigger change than it is. In fact, I think the
> case may well be the same for RHEL; RHEL seems to use ASSIGNED in the
> same way Fedora does (i.e. it's abused to mean 'Triaged').
>
> That makes it a bit double-edged - it's not a big change to make, but
> it's also not a big deal not to change...
The old semantics of ASSIGNED before the triage process was that the
package maintainer looked at the bug, and agreed that he will be (or
already is) working on it.
The question is whether the old semantics was useful or not.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
