Re: the bug team and gnome2.2 [many responses in one email]

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 14:36, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Do you think we could go ahead and do it? Since I've actually _got_ a
> > qa-maint alias pointing at me now, and other people will start qa'ing
> > hopefully very soon, a way to mark bugs as qa'd is essential.
> > 
> > If we try something and it doesn't work, we can drop it. But it would be
> > really nice if we could start trying things soon ;) 
> 
> I'd like for this not to happen until we have some agreed upon standards
> for things more than just 'duplicate/confirmed.' My work in 2.0 was
> successful because there was consistency in prioritization and
> severities. Currently, there is going to be no such consistency from
> multiple people and so I'd prefer not to claim there is. [Claiming that
> something is triaged /is/ a claim that certain standards of
> prioritization and such have been met.]

So, probably I should elaborate on this a bit more. For team-based QA to
be effective, this has /got/ to be consistent. If we're just marking
duplicates and such, we're not going to help the project much.

So... that makes figuring out consistency probably the single most
important thing we can do.[1] We've got some very basic guidelines:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/bug_status.html#severity

Are those clear enough? How can we improve them? Should they be more
step-by-step check-listy? 

I've got this whole body of experience and all that bound up in my head,
and I have no good ideas on how to get them out on paper, except for
that is already there and maybe just 'if you want to mark something
high, ask Luis in IRC, and eventually you'll learn' which seems horribly
crappy and inefficient, but will almost certainly be a buffer to
whatever we do end up writing down.

So... thoughts? we've got to get standards out that make sense for
everyone, but I'm not terribly sure where to start.
Luis

[1]aside from actually bringing in volunteers.