I believe that it works fine in Nokia internal, but it's opensource. Reporter might don't know the process, he just want to fix his issue. But with this process, his might be assigned to himself!
I assume that all yellow boxes will set "Assigned To" field to reporter (as Timo said). This way in most bugs, I think that most bugs with "Verified" will have same "Assigned To" and "Reporter" field, is it correct? I tried for mcts bugs and arm bugs, looks like that most bugs have different "Assignee" and "Reporter". Same even for ARM NEEDINFO bugs! So my question is: Is this rule really practical? Any success example for this rule? Bests Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: eric.le-r...@nokia.com [mailto:eric.le-r...@nokia.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:28 PM > To: aklap...@openismus.com; Zheng, Jeff > Cc: meego-qa@lists.meego.com > Subject: Re: [Meego-qa] Needinfo owner in bugzilla > > Hi, > > On 4/7/11 10:29 AM, "ext Andre Klapper" <aklap...@openismus.com> wrote: > > >On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 14:14 +0800, Zheng, Jeff wrote: > >> I just saw this line at > >> http://wiki.meego.com/Quality/Bug_Life_Cycle_and_Handling: > >> > >> "NEEDINFO bugs should be assigned back to original bug reporter" > >> > >> Does this mean that "Assigned To" field of this bug should be changed > >> to reporter? Or just ask reporter to input more information? > > > >Both. > > > >It's a common practice in Nokia's internal bugtracker to assign bugs to > >that one person that is the next in the line to help getting some > >progress on the issue - may it be by providing more info (reporter), or > >by actually changing some code (developer), or designing some > >architecture, or..... > > Note that we rely on specific customization to automatically reassign the > bug according to the status, so when a bug is changed to needinfo, it's > assigned to the reporter until a response is given and when the reporter > moves the bug back to new, it's reset to the originator of needinfo. > > > >But I've also seen projects that don't do this, like in GNOME Bugzilla, > >and they also survived it. > > > >Hence I don't think that it's important. > > I agree. > > > >What's more important is avoiding random "Please provide more info" bug > >comments neither stating the recipient of the request nor how and what > >to provide, and people that don't read or answer their bugmail. > >That's where the underlying problem is, IMO. > > I totally agree, hence the rule of dismissing the bugs where the reporter > doesn't answer after 28 days. > In any case, the focus must be on scrubbing the reported bug and determine > whether or not the issue is valid no matter how active the originator is. > Our Nokia internal solution works, yet it's far from covering all aspects > and cases of who needs to be the assignee and when. > > To summarize, let's not bring in such customization on bugs.meego.com. > We're better off with proper QA follow-up on bugs in the needinfo status > and more importantly, simplicity :) > > > > >andre > >-- > >Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster) > >http://www.openismus.com > > Cheers, > Eric Le Roux > MeeGo EM Lead > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >MeeGo-qa mailing list > >MeeGo-qa@lists.meego.com > >http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa _______________________________________________ MeeGo-qa mailing list MeeGo-qa@lists.meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa
