Proposed changes to workflow bug management

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi,

On Wednesday 28 May 2008 11:26:00 Henrik Nilsen Omma wrote:
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Isn't the main problem here that some bug triagers do not seem to know
> > about these kinds of bugs, i. e. just an educational one?
>
> Right, education will help esp. if we have clear guidelines to refer to.
> Documentation should be available to fit both developer's and triager's
> workflows.
>
> I happen to think that a small notice in the description of each bug
> will make the documentation obviously discoverable and the confusion
> would go away:
>
> WORKFLOW BUG: This bug is used for a development process and
> does normally not require further triage or user comments.
> Please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkflowBugs for more
> information about workflow bugs.

maybe s.th. which is a little bit more leightweight? (I'm filling all workflow 
bugs by hand, as it gives me time to think it over while typing, so that'd be 
quite a hassle to type).

Also I don't believe that workflow bugs should be a red area for triagers. 
During motu-relase work for hardy, I've seen one or two occurances, where 
someone fixed a bug state from a bad filed freeze exception request, and I 
greatly appreciated this!

(I should also note here, that like Martin proposed I did write a few mails to 
persons who changed freeze exception request wrongly... However I never wrote 
to not touch these, but rather what's important for these and to be careful 
there).

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/20080528/fd79ccf7/attachment-0001.pgp