[Bug 36064] Find a way to mark a report as "needinfo" (stalled until specific input is provided)

2013-06-13 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36064

Andre Klapper  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|Normal  |High

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l


[Bug 36064] Find a way to mark a report as "needinfo" (stalled until specific input is provided)

2013-03-22 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36064

Runa Bhattacharjee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||run...@gmail.com

--- Comment #13 from Runa Bhattacharjee  ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > Just to clarify: NEEDINFO status/needinfo flag doesn't mean "WE SPECIFICALLY
> > NEED MORE INFO FROM *YOU*."
> 
> Correct, but the addressee can be expressed in an additional comment. Setting
> NEEDINFO without a comment would be cryptic and not recommended anyway.
> 

Hello, This would be an extremely helpful feature for the Language Engineering
team. In our workflow we have to communicate with a widely distributed group of
volunteers regularly about requests related to language features filed by them,
which often needs cross-referencing from other contributors of the same or
related languages. At present, we need to followup outside of bugzilla to get
the attention of people whose feedback is a blocker for us (e.g. language
related specifics) to proceed in solving the bugs. Thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
___
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l


[Bug 36064] Find a way to mark a report as "needinfo" (stalled until specific input is provided)

2013-03-20 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36064

--- Comment #12 from Andre Klapper  ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Just to clarify: NEEDINFO status/needinfo flag doesn't mean "WE SPECIFICALLY
> NEED MORE INFO FROM *YOU*."

Correct, but the addressee can be expressed in an additional comment. Setting
NEEDINFO without a comment would be cryptic and not recommended anyway.

> for example: Perhaps information may be needed from the reporter of such an
> issue.  But it may also wait for an answer from the JavaScript team (if such
> exists).  Or from the legal department.  Or from the FSF.  Etc.

Sure, you'd need guidelines. In most Bugzillas I've been active in the rule was
to use a NEEDINFO status *only* against the reporter. If you wait for an answer
from the JS team, you could assign the report to the JS team.

> So you need to be able to specify any other Bugzilla user as the blocker, and
> each Bugzilla user must be able to query "all issues where I'm (my department
> is) listed as blocker".

Is the latter possible in the needinfo flag extension which is enabled on
bugzilla.mozilla.org? I don't think so, and I don't plan to work on extending
the functionality of that extension.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
___
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l


[Bug 36064] Find a way to mark a report as "needinfo" (stalled until specific input is provided)

2013-03-19 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36064

--- Comment #11 from Tim Landscheidt  ---
Just to clarify: NEEDINFO status/needinfo flag doesn't mean "WE SPECIFICALLY
NEED MORE INFO FROM *YOU*."  Take the recent JS minify vs. licence information
for example: Perhaps information may be needed from the reporter of such an
issue.  But it may also wait for an answer from the JavaScript team (if such
exists).  Or from the legal department.  Or from the FSF.  Etc.

So you need to be able to specify any other Bugzilla user as the blocker, and
each Bugzilla user must be able to query "all issues where I'm (my department
is) listed as blocker".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
___
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l


[Bug 36064] Find a way to mark a report as "needinfo" (stalled until specific input is provided)

2013-03-19 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36064

Andre Klapper  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|Low |Normal
Summary|Enable flags for needinfo   |Find a way to mark a report
   ||as "needinfo" (stalled
   ||until specific input is
   ||provided)

--- Comment #10 from Andre Klapper  ---
Pasting the log from the Bugzilla/Bug management IRC Office hour in
#wikimedia-office IRC here:

 so, whoever is in the mood for discussing: Another interesting idea
might be to introduce a NEEDINFO bug status, when there is information missing
from the reporter. This is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36064
 and I was told that at least the Language Engineering team would like
to have a way to tag bug reports as "needs more information" or "stalled".
 some Bugzilla have such a status (like GNOME and KDE), other
Bugzillas (Mozilla) use a so-called "flag" (a dropdown) for that.
 ...but I guess I'll need to ask some more teams to decide whether to
do that or not, vs. making things more complicated by adding yet another
status. (Though adding it as a status would be very easy, technically)
 My vote: do what makes sense to you. You own this. :)
 andre__: wouldn't UNCONFIRMED fit?
 MatmaRex, hmm, that's an interesting idea - does "unconfirmed" mean
that it's not clear whether the issue exists and whether it's a real "bug" in
our code / setup, or can it also mean "nobody else has seen this problem yet"
or "not enough info yet or anymore to confirm it"?
 lately I prefer the latter interpretation, but I'm probably a
minority.
 andre__: i think it's a bit of both
 but i rarely see it used
 MatmaRex, also, "Please retest this after these changes" would mean
to reset it to UNCONFIRMED? 
 it's an interesting idea.
 i'd say it means that no one apart from the reporter confirmed it -
ie, non-reproducible
 (or not reproduced yet)
 it might also mean that no one (yet) agreed with the reports whether
the subject of the report is actually an issue
 MatmaRex: my question is usually, well, i can reproduce it , but am
still not sure if it is our bug, or someone else's bug
 lizzard: i'd say that's not UNCONFIRMED, just a bug, possibly one
that should get an 'upstream' keyword once it's figured out on our side
* MatmaRex 's not a bugmeister, though.
 MatmaRex, on the other hand, NEEDINFO means "stalled" or "needs info
from somebody before anything else can be done". That doesn't feel like
UNCONFIRMED to me.
 Still the question "Can UNCONFIRMED be used for what NEEDINFO is in
some other bugtrackers?" is something really good to think about
 Right now, the moment a person shows up with a new bug, it's at
UNCONFIRMED. Unless we're going to switch that to something else, it's better
to have something else that means WE SPECIFICALLY NEED MORE INFO FROM YOU.
BLOCKED OTHERWISE.
 YES WE LOOKED AT IT. PLEASE REVISE.
 hm, good point.
 (it's only UNCONFIRMED on enter_bug.cgi if you don't have editbugs
permissions, otherwise the dropdown defaults to NEW)
 usage of Unconfirmed is "Bugs with the "Unconfirmed" keyword
have been entered into Bugzilla but not yet confirmed by Development that an
actual bug exists."
 For searches, and for a skim down a list of bugs, we won't be able to
tell "oh this would be NEW except the person's unprivileged"
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/describekeywords.cgi
 (as an example)
 so that's a keyword, over there in RedHat land. :)
 sankarshan_CPU, uh, RedHat has a keyword for that, instead of a
status? interesting.
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/describekeywords.cgi includes "testme
- This bug needs to be re-confirmed to check if it is still present in the
latest alpha version of MediaWiki."
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow is
the one from Fedora land .. andre__
 yeah, but testme is a more general keyword for "old stuff that should
be retested" but there's no indication that a developer couldn't pick it up and
fix it - it's not necessarily asking a specific person for more information
like NEEDINFO would be.
 sankarshan_CPU, thanks
 you're right andre__
 ok, so it sounds like andre__ needs to do a little checking of other
Bugzilla installations, make a decision, & implement it :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are watching all bug changes.
___
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l