Launchpad bug workflow change

Phillip Susi psusi at
Tue Jun 19 19:36:47 UTC 2007

Henrik Nilsen Omma wrote:
> 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.

Now it sounds like Todo is the same as In progress, set by a developer 
when he is ( or is about to be ) working on  it.  And Triaged is for 
bugs that are ready to be pulled into that pool, which is what confirmed 
is today.

It looks like you are trying to find a state for bugs that are 
completely documented, but for some reason are not ready for developer 
attention.  What other reason would a developer have for not wanting to 
look at a bug other than it is invalid ( and thus should be rejected ), 
or it needs fixed upstream?  Maybe we just need to bring back the 
upstream state we used to have in bugzilla?

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list