Stop triaging bugs

Maarten Bezemer maarten.bezemer at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 15:35:31 UTC 2014


On Monday 24 March 2014 16:01:48 Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> El 24/03/14 14:47, Marc Deslauriers escribió:
> > On 14-03-24 09:37 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> >> El 24/03/14 13:31, Marc Deslauriers escribió:
> >>> Could you please stop changing statuses of bugs you don't intend on
> >>> fixing yourself?
> >>> 
> >>> Marking a bug as "triaged" and changing priorities on them makes
> >>> absolutely no sense if you aren't tasked to fix them.
> >>> 
> >>> Changing one of my team's bugs to "triaged" means our scripts and
> >>> procedures no longer consider the bug to be new, hence, nobody will
> >>> look at it anymore. It is breaking our workflow.
> >> 
> >> As said in the bug statuses <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20statuses>
> >> page, which arbitrates the hole bug management work-flow in Launchpad,
> >> "triaged" means "a member of UbuntuBugControl
> >> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl> believes that the report
> >> describes a genuine bug in enough detail that a developer could start
> >> working on a fix."
> >> 
> >> Moreover, according to lean management
> >> 
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_management>:
> >>    * The first source of flaws (or any waste) is them to remain invisible
> >>    (or
> >>    
> >>      untriaged or with unset priority in the case of bug management).
> >>    
> >>    * Unpredictable work-flow has to be done manually till, after some
> >>    continuous>>    
> >>      improvement and waste reduction, it becomes regular.
> >> 
> >> So, since your work-flow conflicts with Launchpad's one and with
> >> principal
> >> productivity recommendations, I'm sorry I'm not taking on your request;
> >> except if I'm missing something.
> > 
> > (...)
> > Modifying in an arbitrary way bug statuses and priorities that teams
> > depend on to track work is simply a bad idea.
> > (...)
> 
> What do you think; Quality, BugSquad and BugControl; about this topic?

Each group uses the status (and other) field(s) for their own use. Depending on 
the bug and where it is send to, one should use the definitions of the group 
responsible. In this case the bugs (apparently) belong to a group that use 
different 'definitions' of the status field, than Bug Squat does.

I have seen information on different uses of the bug fields somewhere on 
wiki.ubuntu.com but I cannot find it anymore..?
I suppose this needs to be made more clear on 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20statuses maybe with a list of links to the 
other groups and their descriptions/use of the fields.

Regards,
  Maarten



More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list