Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:48:27 -0700
Sandy Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote:


> When you say "subscribed to bugs", I can only assume you mean the
> [email protected] list which appears in the CC here.  I have
> never heard of this mailing list until now.  Is this something I
> should be subscribed to?

Yes indeed, we meant gnome-bugsquad. Sorry -- this is, specifically,
my fault. 

This is a low-volume ML, usually with announcements and
questions/responses on the triaging process. I personally (and,
now obviously, absolutely wrong) expected this to be a
generally-subscribed ML.

ut, going on: we could do it either way, but I would rather have it set:
either all subscribe to gnome-bugsquad ML, or we copy all the GNOME
devel MLs when we send out an announcement like this one. But not both.

> 
> About the change...
> 
> I usually don't mark a bug CONFIRMED until a developer has confirmed
> it, and sometimes things slip through the cracks.  This is especially
> the case with Enhancement bugs, because I only mark such bugs
> CONFIRMED if I intend to implement them in the short-term.  Setting
> them to NEEDINFO seems a little awkward.  NEEDINFO bugs tend to
> disappear from a lot of searches, but I guess with this change I'll
> need to start actively keeping an eye on that category.

The whole issue, it seems, stems from the fact that triagers look, and
work, on UNCONFIRMED bugs, until such a point where enough information
has been collected, the issue identified, and a developer/maintainer
can then work on the bug. 

Keeping a valid, ready-for-developer work, bug UNCONFIRMED only
pollutes the search results for triagers, making triaging much more
difficult: "is this old bug a ready-for-developer one, or should we work
on it"-type of questions.

As much as developers do not want to spend time doing unneeded work, so
do triagers.

> I'm not too freaked out about it, but at the same time I'm not sure
> how the change helps the bugsquad in the case of my modules.

Sandy, I do not know either. We erred in assuming all would read it.
But we *do* need to have a common way of working with bugs.

Cheers, 

p.s. I am not subscribed to the dekstop-devel-list, so I have no idea
if this will make there or not. I am not a GNOME developer. Should I
subscribe to it?

_______________________________________________
gnome-bugsquad mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkq0JVcACgkQfbrzscpaDCC3EACg1GEXcNRTcRts/BGuvKgvbo0j
4KIAoN+chUVoomXs3HfIZnFlt4Hxxkz7
=uZN0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----