On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:15:09 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Tend to agree, but rather than focusing on figuring out who messed > up/etc, let's just move forward. The link would be handy to refer to when we need to educate future people; but anyhow, someone else responded something relevant just now. Regarding who, it's not a single person; the majority of bugs that _aren't_ automatically filed show this problem, multiple people do so. Nobody did bad, there's just a lack of communication *from both sides*. > Short of making an automated bug reporting policy I'm not sure how to > better document things. I agree that it is easy to miss stuff in list > archives. Bottom line is people shouldn't take this stuff personally > - just improve and move on. Yeah, imho, bots and scripts that run mass actions against anything in the Gentoo infrastructure should be reviewed or be made according to such policy. I haven't seen a review of the last mass actions being, and I don't think they are implemented according to certain standards. Some thoughts: - Rate limiting. - Skim the list the script applies to for exceptions. - Run a small enough subset as a test before running the entire thing. > > > > Severity and Priority on the Gentoo Bugzilla have always been weird > > to me; I would love to hear from someone who is actually using > > either of those to sort their bugs and using them happily, because > > the inconsistency applied by different people is making a mess of > > them. > > I suspect we could just get by with one field. Probably, how would such field work? One field being just priority? > But, since we're not getting paid it really is more of a > communication/organization tool. At work when we mark bugs high we > expect them to get fixed, since the devs are paid to work on what we > want them to work on, and if that means leaving the blocker alone > while making the splash screen look prettier that's management's > prerogative. Yeah, and here at Gentoo the version bumps are attractive; until there are no more version bumps to do, then we often just pick a random bug where we should probably pick one of the more important ones. > If we do want to have two fields, then the one should be more of a > factual statement (is it an improvement, something that makes the > package unusable for some users, a regression, something that makes > the package unusable for all users, removal of a blocker, etc - > roughly in increasing severity), and the other a true priority (H/M/L > - which is at the discretion of the maintainer, but perhaps set > initially based on guidelines in order to help them out). Yes, bringing more meaning into them is what would be nice to see. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
