Proposed changes to workflow bug management

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday 26 May 2008 19:56, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com>
> wrote:

> > After some review, it appears that there is no easy way for bugsquad
> > members
> > to reliably identify such bugs that is consistent with their normal work
> > flow.  The most reliable method to identify them by team subscription
> > (e.g. ubuntu-archive, ubuntu-mir, ubuntun-universe-sponsors, etc.), but
> > this is not
> > something generally used in the triage process.
>
> I'm very curious as to why that is. It seems much easier to me to check bug
> subscribers (for archive, sru, or release bugs) or titles
> (merges/syncs/removals) than making sure a bug is reported against the
> right package and has all the information needed for developers to start
> working (typical triaging task, no?).

Right.  You and me both.  Apparently it's too hard.  Given that, the only 
viable solution seemed to be to take such bugs off their radar by making them 
invisible.

I'd encourage anyone with ideas on how avoiding these bugs could be added to 
the standard bug triage workflow in a reasonable way to discuss it on the 
bugsquad mailing list.  Perhaps there's another way that'll be effective for 
them that doesn't impact to extensively on the existing workflow.

Scott K