On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:36:34AM -0500, C de-Avillez wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Brendan Donegan < > brendan.done...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > IMO, a team should also be looking at Triaged bugs when selecting new > > tasks to work on, so if the bugs are genuinely Triaged and they have > > enough information to go to In Progress (when a developer wants to work > > on them) then I don't see the harm in general. I personally would tend > > to look at both New and Triaged bugs when looking to pick up bug fixing > > work on the projects I help maintain. > > > > It all depends. There is NO one-size-fits-all that will work. The security > team (as well as the kernel team, and others) have special workflows. One > problem we have in launchpad is that there is no concept of workflow, all > we have are bugs (as far as we are concerned). Workflow was hammered in > bugs, using what launchpad provides. > > (Also, you have imposed yourself a limit -- "when looking (...) on the > projects I help maintain". You do not go and change bugs on projects you DO > NOT maintain. You actually may go in, but you will be more careful.) > > But, back to the issue at hand. The majority of security bugs shown with > Alberto's search are *visibly* different from the "normal" bugs we deal > with. I expect triagers to be careful on what they do -- if a certain bug > looks different from the "common" (whatever it may mean) bug, STOP. Find > why it is different. Don't assume that it is all the same.
And, if something is different or you have any doubts ask for help either in the #ubuntu-bugs channel on irc or on the ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list. If you don't get an answer in a timely fashion ping me and I'll do my best to respond. -- Brian Murray
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-quality mailing list Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
