Proposed changes to workflow bug management

[Mike Rooney]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Ben Collins <ben.collins at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 16:18 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Ben Collins <ben.collins at canonical.com> writes:
>>
>> > Take the intrepid linux-ports package that will be coming down the pipe.
>> > The bugs will be split up on the basis of architecture. So assigning
>> > bugs to the ubuntu-{powerpc,ia64,hppa,sparc} teams as a triage step
>> > makes sense, and immediately shows responsibility. Then individuals in
>> > those teams can take the bug.
>> >
>> > No one has yet explained a better way to handle this sort of workflow,
>>
>> Obvious way: don't assign, but subscribe the team that is going to
>> handle the bug.
>>
>> The advantages:
>>  - it does not give users the false impression someone would actually
>>    work on that bug
>
> I don't see how users get that impression. In-Progress is what is meant
> to show that a bug is being worked on. Assignment just shows who is
> ultimately responsible for the next stage of the workflow. Once it is
> triaged, in the case I outlined, then a team is responsible for the next
> step (not a single person). That next step is deciding whether it should
> be fixed or not, and then having a person work on it.
>

This makes perfect sense to me. If a bug isn't "In Progress", I
shouldn't assume it is in progress (ie being worked on actively by
that team)! This way assigning to teams doesn't lose any information,
and I do agree bugs should be assignable to teams.

By the way, I am Mike Rooney (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MikeRooney).

- Mike