On segunda-feira, 18 de março de 2013 14.39.14, Alan Alpert wrote: > I'm not fond of this distinction because it's not very practical. I > have plenty of low priority bugs assigned to me which I'm intending to > fix "sometime". Does this count as "someone is going to work on the > item"? Because it's certainly viable for someone else to take over if > they wanted it done sooner than "sometime", just as viable as an > unassigned bug. But there's the advantage that they know who to ask if > they have questions about the task. > > I much prefer the distinction like Thiago suggested, where assignee is > a person "responsible" for the bug even if they aren't necessarily > going to ever find time to work on the item. At least then you have > someone to ask if you want to take it over but have questions.
Wait, wait. I never suggested that long-term. I am ok with having a default assignee, who is responsible for *triaging* the bug. As soon as the triaging is complete, you can unassign. I highly recommend that you keep yourself in the Watchers list after you unassign. I do that too, unless I reassigned to a very different domain (like "Core: Event System" -> "GUI: Window Management"). I do that and would like to continue doing that. One thing I hate is to have a very long dashboard, which is the same thing as not having a dashboard. The very long Gerrit dashboard is definitely impacting my efficiency -- and everyone who depends on me is suffering. Please don't force me to have a very long dashboard in JIRA too, it will just mean I won't look at JIRA, ever. > I disagree, because JIRA is supposed to be a tool that allows the > different groups to work together. It's going to be confusing for even > dedicated triagers to follow a variety of conflicting rules, and it > certainly can't be asked of the bug reporters (who don't want to need > special training based on the component which they're bad at picking > anyways...). Even if the default assignee is "Unassigned" for some > modules, the meaning of assigned vs unassigned should be consistent > throughout the Qt project. Agreed. > > > Personally, I'm happy to have testlib bugs auto-assigned to me so that > > I get an email for each new bug to prompt me to go and triage it. I > > prefer the email notification to having to poll Jira frequently. The > > volume of new bug reports in testlib is low enough that this works > > well for me. I also happen to be the default assignee of the Other > > component and getting those bugs auto-assigned to me prompts me via > > email to have a look and figure out which component the Other bugs > > really belong to. Unless I mark something as In Progress, I'm happy > > for anybody else to take it off my hands by assigning it to > > themselves. > > > > On the other hand, I can see that maintainers with a larger throughout > > of Jira tasks might prefer to default to Unassigned and poll Jira for > > high-priority items. Jira supports both options on a per-component > > basis, so we can be flexible. > > Except that you need to triage the bugs *before* you can be confident > in the component or priority, so that approach doesn't work. Agreed too. But doesn't JIRA have a feature that mails you of new activity (including new entries) in a search term? You should be able to watch components and be notified, just as if you had been assigned a new bug. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
