Bug importances - Suggestion for improvement

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 15:00:49 C de-Avillez wrote:
> 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.

Please, please, please!  If you are not a developer involved in the relevant 
workflow of a workflow bug, leave it alone.  You may think you are helping.  
Trust me, you are not.

Scott K