[Fwd: On teams with diverting work-flows]

[Pedro Villavicencio Garrido]

Hola Sense,

> > De: Sense Hofstede <qense at ubuntu.com>
> > Para: Ubuntu QA <ubuntu-qa at lists.ubuntu.com>
> > Asunto: On teams with diverting work-flows
> > Fecha: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:41:12 +0100
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > We probably all remember the arguments and rants that appeared a while
> > ago when MOTU got irritated by interference of the Bug Squad in their
> > work flow[1]. MOTU uses the statuses differently than the Bug Squad
> > does and even uses reports that would be dismissed as Invalid by some
> > members of the Bug Squad. However, after the dust settled it was
> > decided to make an exception for MOTU and allow them to use their own
> > work-flow. The Bug Squad policy was adapted to leave these kind of
> > bugs alone.
> > 
> > The packagers are not the only team to use different statuses. The
> > Security Team has given different meanings to the statuses, although
> > they still roughly mean the same.[2] More disturbing is the work-flow
> > change that the Desktop Team has implemented. Since Launchpad cannot
> > fetch the status of bugs from GNOME Bugzilla -- does anyone know why?
> > -- they're using the status 'Fix Committed' to indicate that there is
> > a patch/fix available upstream. However, Bug Control and the Bug Squad
> > didn't receive notice -- I never saw one -- of this change, and it
> > wasn't really discussed. This is not how things like this should go,
> > or at least not how I feel things should go.

That workflow is being used for more than 3 years(probably 4), when  i
joined the Ubuntu project the workflow was already there. So there's no
new workflow here.

And well you answer yourself why it's being used: "Since Launchpad
cannot fetch the status of bugs from GNOME Bugzilla ", and I've no idea
why that's something to ask to the launchpad team. BTW The status is
being used *just* for bugs that were fixed upstream not for those with a
patch (ie: unreviewed) there.

> > I'm not against the use of a different work-flow when it's unworkable
> > to rigidly follow the default rules of the Bug Squad, the packagers
> > can't do without their own work-flow with Launchpad in its current
> > state. However, before a team decides to use a different work-flow it
> > should be seriously considered if it is really necessary and really
> > the best option. The Desktop Team could have used a tag instead, but
> > they choose for something as disrupting as changing the work-flow for
> > a selection of the most important packages in Ubuntu. Even if I'm the
> > only one thinking a tag would have been sufficient, the QA teams
> > should at least have been allowed to provide feedback and to notify
> > their users properly. Because as we speak the documentation isn't even
> > updated.

Tags are not the best for such things, everybody can change those... I'm
sure everybody is open to suggestions but please don't use tags unless
there's some kind of access restrictions (Ubuntu BugControl) for those.

> > 
> > Maybe something for a session at the UDS?

That'd be great!. Thanks for raising this up.

Have a nice day,

pedro.