# from Michael G Schwern
# on Thursday 11 September 2008 14:17:
>At first glance this new system is going to generate a lot more work
> per report. Let's step through the old procedure...
>
>1. Read report
>2. Reply to report
Did you actually get every report on a CC? I never seemed to get more
than a random sampling.
I also don't quite understand your assessment of the workflow. How many
times per day do you need to contact the tester about the report? If
multiple testers uncover the same bug, I just fix the bug.
Now, perhaps you need to ask a tester to "try something" before you have
enough info to fix the bug. Do you ask each one individually, or
contact everyone who found it at once? I would assume that testers
would rather not duplicate work (at least, *I* try to avoid working on
something if I know someone who is completely capable has already
started on it -- because I would rather that neither of us duplicate
the effort, and definitely not in isolation (which seems to be implied
by individually replying to each tester (yes, you say you cc
cpantesters -- but is that list not a huge pile of incoming automated
reports?)))
So, I'm having trouble understanding your view of the reports as
a "queue". I certainly treat RT reports that way, but so does RT.
--Eric
--
Turns out the optimal technique is to put it in reverse and gun it.
--Steven Squyres (on challenges in interplanetary robot navigation)
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
