Launchpad bug statuses

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

Am Mittwoch 03 Oktober 2007 17:47:49 schrieb Christian Robottom Reis:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:46:11PM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > (1) Package versions in bugs.
>
> Captured from the bug reporter, or something else?

In an ideal world, the bug reporter wouldn't need to know (e.g. the way 
reportbug deals this in interaction with debian's bts, but I guess there are 
more technical ways to solve this like usage of browser plugins or 
youtellme ;). As a first step though, capturing from the reporter would 
greatly help.

>
> > (2) Bug statuses that are self-explanatory, so that a
> > user/triager/developer will do the right thing w.o. having to read the
> > aforementioned page in the first place. I guess the lengthy discussion in
> > this thread showed that this is not the case with your proposal.
>
> I question whether any bug status will ever be self-explanatory. The
> fact that they need to be short means that there will always be some
> ambiguity in them, and the best we can do is document, teach and guide
> people into doing the right thing.
>
> I have been toying for a long time with the idea that a status dropdown
> is actually not the best way to guide people to using statuses properly.
> I just haven't summoned up the guts to try and push this through while
> getting flamed to death <wink>.

hehe. Well I didn't say it was an easy taks to make bug statusses 
self-explanatory, and I'm convinced that it's indeed a very tough one. It 
involves the questions of who is interested in what statusses for what 
purposes, which will drastly differ for different point of views 
(users/core-devs/RMs/MOTUs/upstreams). Additionally, people have made up 
their own workflows based on the current statusses (and other fields) offered 
by LP up to know, complicating this further.

I guess the right question for you to ask would be what current workflows 
people using LP have and in what way they use the bug statusses and what in 
general they miss or would like to do (vs. what workflows LP should in theory 
support, as I guess you should know that best yourself already). Some of this 
was already discussed elsewhere in this thread, but I guess Jordan's idea 
that you should take part in an upcoming ubuntu bug triage was pretty good.

Cheers,
   Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20071007/f30d48df/attachment.pgp