Stop triaging bugs

[Andrea Corbellini]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Maarten Bezemer 
<maarten.bezemer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2014 16:01:48 Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
>>  El 24/03/14 14:47, Marc Deslauriers escribió:
>>  > On 14-03-24 09:37 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
>>  >> El 24/03/14 13:31, Marc Deslauriers escribió:
>>  >>> Could you please stop changing statuses of bugs you don't 
>> intend on
>>  >>> fixing yourself?
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Marking a bug as "triaged" and changing priorities on them makes
>>  >>> absolutely no sense if you aren't tasked to fix them.
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> Changing one of my team's bugs to "triaged" means our scripts 
>> and
>>  >>> procedures no longer consider the bug to be new, hence, nobody 
>> will
>>  >>> look at it anymore. It is breaking our workflow.
>>  >> 
>>  >> As said in the bug statuses 
>> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20statuses>
>>  >> page, which arbitrates the hole bug management work-flow in 
>> Launchpad,
>>  >> "triaged" means "a member of UbuntuBugControl
>>  >> <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl> believes that the 
>> report
>>  >> describes a genuine bug in enough detail that a developer could 
>> start
>>  >> working on a fix."
>>  >> 
>>  >> Moreover, according to lean management
>>  >> 
>>  >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_management>:
>>  >>    * The first source of flaws (or any waste) is them to remain 
>> invisible
>>  >>    (or
>>  >>    
>>  >>      untriaged or with unset priority in the case of bug 
>> management).
>>  >>    
>>  >>    * Unpredictable work-flow has to be done manually till, after 
>> some
>>  >>    continuous>>    
>>  >>      improvement and waste reduction, it becomes regular.
>>  >> 
>>  >> So, since your work-flow conflicts with Launchpad's one and with
>>  >> principal
>>  >> productivity recommendations, I'm sorry I'm not taking on your 
>> request;
>>  >> except if I'm missing something.
>>  > 
>>  > (...)
>>  > Modifying in an arbitrary way bug statuses and priorities that 
>> teams
>>  > depend on to track work is simply a bad idea.
>>  > (...)
>>  
>>  What do you think; Quality, BugSquad and BugControl; about this 
>> topic?
> 
> Each group uses the status (and other) field(s) for their own use. 
> Depending on 
> the bug and where it is send to, one should use the definitions of 
> the group 
> responsible. In this case the bugs (apparently) belong to a group 
> that use 
> different 'definitions' of the status field, than Bug Squat does.
> 
> I have seen information on different uses of the bug fields somewhere 
> on 
> wiki.ubuntu.com but I cannot find it anymore..?

Probably you are referring to this?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20triage#Special_types_of_bugs
> I suppose this needs to be made more clear on 
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20statuses maybe with a list of 
> links to the 
> other groups and their descriptions/use of the fields.
> 
> Regards,
>   Maarten
> 
> -- 
> Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list
> Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad