Bug importances - Suggestion for improvement

[C de-Avillez]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella <
es20490446e at gmail.com> wrote:

> El 08/04/14 22:35, C de-Avillez escribió:
>
>  Sorry, I do not understand what you said above. Can you please rephrase?
>>
>
> Yes: Although bug management does not apply to workflow bugs, they still
> have to be worked first by developers. So setting these as critical is a
> visual aid for them.
>
>
Why? This is not a bug, it is a workflow. If this is not a workflow you are
*involved* with (as, for example, 100 papercuts) you *cannot* change
anything in the workflow bug without clearing it out with the people that
actually work them.

It does not matter if my personal perception is "this is a critical
(workflow) bug for *me*": it is NOT a workflow under your responsibility.



>
> El 09/04/14 00:52, Thomas Ward escribió:
>
> > In the "How to Triage" guide [1], even, there's a section labeled
> > "Special Types of Bugs" [2], which says that unless you know what you're
> > doing, you shouldn't touch those bugs.  Status included.
>
> Because this is prone to mistake, perhaps we can warn in the Bug Statuses
> page itself that these bugs are not covered in that policy.
>
>
Agreed.


>
> El 09/04/14 00:52, Thomas Ward escribió:
>
> > That's my opinion on this.  Let's move on to actually fixing bugs, not
> > dealing with how we set the importance on special bugs, of which our bug
> > triage rules don't really apply in the same way (if at all, case in
> > point merge requests, sync requests, security bugs (which have slightly
> > different policies), etc.).
>
> There's another relevant part of setting importances for all bugs


You again are mixing real bugs and workflow "bugs".


> , which is bugs that really need its importance to be set can be
> catalogued in work-flows made of list; without having items in these that
> cannot be cleaned up.
>
> For example, in the following work-flows:
>  - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow>
>  - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl/Final%20clean-up>
>  - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Ubuntu%20Bug%20Weekend>
>
> Summarizing: While changing status for this bugs can disrupt development
> work-flow, setting their importance to a default value can be a visual aid
> for everyone.
>
>
Sorry, this does not make sense for me: I will rephrase, as I understood
the above sentence:

"while changing status for workflow bugs can disrupt development workflow,
I do not care. It is not my workflow."

The importance will be set by the people working this workflow, if they so
want to. Otherwise it should be left as is.

-- 
..hggdh..