Launchpad bug workflow change
Henrik Nilsen Omma
henrik at ubuntu.com
Tue Jun 19 18:33:01 UTC 2007
Phillip Susi wrote:
> Henrik Nilsen Omma wrote:
>> * Triaged will mean that a bug has all the information attached to
>> it that a developer needs to fix it. The 'confirmed' state was
>> previously used for this purpose, but many users were 'confirming'
>> bugs when observed by a second person.
> I disagree with this term. If something has been Triaged, that means
> it has been evaluated for urgency and had resources assigned
I agree that 'evaluating the urgency' should also fit into the Triaged
state. However, not that this can only be done by ubuntu-qa or
developers (setting importance). Assigning resources can really only be
done by the people who intend to fix it, which is an even smaller group.
The point of having the Triaged step is that the people fixing bugs
should not have to look at all 30 000 open bugs. They only look at
Triaged and from that group they reject some, push some back to
Incomplete and add some to their Todo list. That should make the overall
workflow more precise and efficient. We can discuss how well the word
'Triaged' fit that category, but IMO we do need that category.
>> * Todo will form the list of bugs that developers expect to work on
>> in the near future. These would typically also be assigned to a
>> developer or a dev team.
> I see no real difference between this and the proposed use of Triaged.
> If a bug is confirmed to exist and has had all required information
> attached to it so that a developer can now fix it, why wouldn't a
> developer expect to work on it in the near future?
Because we don't have the resources to fix all the bugs that are filed
in Ubuntu within the the project. We may file them upstream and leave
them Triaged or mark it In Progress if work is ongoing upstream. A
developer may also look at a Triaged bug and decide it is a WontFix
because it's not appropriate for Ubuntu or we don't have the resources
to fix it.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss