On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:48:27 -0700 Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong gmail com> wrote: > When you say "subscribed to bugs", I can only assume you mean the > gnome-bugsquad gnome org list which appears in the CC here. I have > never heard of this mailing list until now. Is this something I > should be subscribed to? Yes indeed, we meant gnome-bugsquad. Sorry -- this is, specifically, my fault. This is a low-volume ML, usually with announcements and questions/responses on the triaging process. I personally (and, now obviously, absolutely wrong) expected this to be a generally-subscribed ML. ut, going on: we could do it either way, but I would rather have it set: either all subscribe to gnome-bugsquad ML, or we copy all the GNOME devel MLs when we send out an announcement like this one. But not both. > > About the change... > > I usually don't mark a bug CONFIRMED until a developer has confirmed > it, and sometimes things slip through the cracks. This is especially > the case with Enhancement bugs, because I only mark such bugs > CONFIRMED if I intend to implement them in the short-term. Setting > them to NEEDINFO seems a little awkward. NEEDINFO bugs tend to > disappear from a lot of searches, but I guess with this change I'll > need to start actively keeping an eye on that category. The whole issue, it seems, stems from the fact that triagers look, and work, on UNCONFIRMED bugs, until such a point where enough information has been collected, the issue identified, and a developer/maintainer can then work on the bug. Keeping a valid, ready-for-developer work, bug UNCONFIRMED only pollutes the search results for triagers, making triaging much more difficult: "is this old bug a ready-for-developer one, or should we work on it"-type of questions. As much as developers do not want to spend time doing unneeded work, so do triagers. > I'm not too freaked out about it, but at the same time I'm not sure > how the change helps the bugsquad in the case of my modules. Sandy, I do not know either. We erred in assuming all would read it. But we *do* need to have a common way of working with bugs. Cheers, p.s. I am not subscribed to the dekstop-devel-list, so I have no idea if this will make there or not. I am not a GNOME developer. Should I subscribe to it?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature