On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Amy Muntz wrote:
Hi Lou,
I would appreciate it if you would still remain as the default
assignment
so that you can perform the initial validation. You know the docs
better
than anyone, and for each bug filed, we need to validate it and then
reassign it appropriately. Once validated, it would also be hepful if
you could assign a priority. Then, reassign them all to me.
That makes sense. I'll do that.
From my point of view, having three categories makes sense:
Documentation: Ref Guide
Documentation: Dev Guide
Documentation: Tools
The only difference between this and what we have now is
that doc: dev guide is currently just doc. We could change
doc to doc: dev guide, but it's not critical.
Currently, there are many bugs categorized as Tools that should
really be categorized as Ref Guide. Should I move, prioritize, and
assign those as well (at least the ones that are assigned to me)?
I would guess that the great majority of bugs filed as Tools are
not really tools issues, but ref issues.
We can certainly change the components and their naming - since
Doc Tools was selected because we were
re-doing the doc tools to generate the Ref Guide. I'm not sure that
component name was ever obvious to users when filing bugs.
It was never obvious to me either.
Would
appreciate your suggestions on this as well.
--- Amy
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Lou Iorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Amy,
As far as I understand, doc bugs should be filed in one of two
places:
Documentation: all dguide issues
Doc Tools: all reference guide issues
Some people are filing bugs as Documentation - RefGuide, which, from
their point of view makes perfect sense, but these are getting
assigned to
me, which doesn't make sense. These should be assigned to developers.
Is there any legitimate reason for bugs to be filed as
Documentation -
RefGuide?
Should Documentation - RefGuide just go away, and existing open
bugs be
moved to Doc Tools? If not, the default assignment should be to
someone
other
than me.
Thanks,
Lou
