Bug triaging

[Wouter van Heyst]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 01:10:59PM -0400, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 11:49 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
> 
> > I honestly don't have any idea about "assigning" bugs to people.
> 
> A general comment on Malone here : the concept of 'assigned to X' for a
> bug is that person or team X are the ones the project leads *want* to
> fix the bug. If they agree, they will 'accept' the bug.

Same as in trac, no confusion there.

> So: If there is a bug that has been tracked down to (say) the core
> merge-changeset code, and you know that that is Aaron's baby, you could
> assign it him. However, I think it is better for folk to just assign the
> bug to themselves when they decide they have the time and energy to
> tackle it, rather than assigning something that they may not have the
> time or energy to tackle at this point. Obviously, when the folk

I would only assign a bug if I was sure the assignee felt responsible
for the code in question. At the moment I'm very conservative in this
and will ask individuals involved before taking action.

> involved have dedicated time for coding on bzr (such as folk hired to
> work on it), then assignment of bugs has more impact - but within the
> community assignment is no more than a request that someone take on the
> bug, that is doing any work is a voluntary thing, and you should bear
> that in mind when considering 'assignment'.

That is how I understand assignment, a request for looking at the bug.

Wouter van Heyst