On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014, Gonzalo Odiard <godi...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> This is an interesting blog post with a paragraph about GNOME triaging >>> >>> http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/enabling-participation/ >>> >>> Interestingly it's pretty much exactly the same approach I followed with >>> the triaging I had done with 0.100. It would be good to have a simple set >>> of rule like that written down before the meeting. I think the way we >>> triage has a huge impact on lowering contribution barriers, >>> >>> >> +1 >> >> We need at least verify all the "Unconfirmed" tickets. We can start now, >> don't need wait until the triage meeting. >> I assume, if the bug is confirmed, we should set: >> Milestone = 0.102 >> Status = New >> > > I wonder about Milestone. It seems like it would only be useful if we > assign different milestones to tickets and I'm not sure we can do that > without being able to allocate resources to fix them. It's also a time > consuming task. > True. > > >> or close them if are not longer present. >> >> Would be good if we can reset all the priorities to "Unassigned", >> in all the tickets with module=Sugar,the field content does not have any >> sense right now. >> > > Do we want to use the field? Otherwise maybe there is a way to just get > rid of it. > > > Just to mark they have been triaged, and based in the querys used in bugs.sugarlabs.org home. Do you propose doing in another way? -- Gonzalo Odiard SugarLabs - Software for children learning
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep