| 1 |
Joshua Jackson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 4/26/07, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Case 2 - Metadata contains a single maintainer |
| 5 |
> >> ---------------------------------------------- |
| 6 |
> >> - The herd field is not used. |
| 7 |
> >> - The maintainer address is used as the bugzilla assignee. |
| 8 |
> >> This is important for all the herds that have aliases that are NOT the |
| 9 |
> >> same as their herd name! |
| 10 |
> >> This diverges from existing manual practice, to avoid unnecessary |
| 11 |
> >> duplicate mail, and means that existing metadata may need a cleanup. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > It should take devaway into account. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> why? Seriously, dev-away != dev retired... having it take devaway into |
| 16 |
> account is pointless in my opinion as it won't improve it being properly |
| 17 |
> assigned...as it'll be covered in other cases, and its not like there's |
| 18 |
> not bugs for all of us dev's that have not sat there for a month or so, |
| 19 |
> at some point |
| 20 |
I think it is important that someone has a look at the bugs submitted. |
| 21 |
For instance, a submitter might not behave correctly, and submit a security |
| 22 |
issue to Gentoo Linux instead of Gentoo Security. Or the submitter does not |
| 23 |
even recognize it is a security issue, or might be or become one. |
| 24 |
In that case the bug would sit there until the dev it was automatically |
| 25 |
assigned to is back again (which could take quite some time). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Another (minor) reason, might be, that bugs could be assigned to the wrong |
| 28 |
person, because of whatsoever reason, and that dev is unavailable. |
| 29 |
This bug would sit there and wait to be reassigned until the dev comes back, |
| 30 |
who will reassign it to the correct dev, who in turn will mark it |
| 31 |
as "dublicate" because someone else useing the correct format for the summary |
| 32 |
submitted it yet and the submitter of our first bug feels demotivated :-) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Maybe it is for those and similar reasons which can easily be made up better |
| 35 |
to leave bugs which would otherwise be automatically assigned to devs which |
| 36 |
are unavailable to the bug-wranglers, or maybe better: |
| 37 |
Automatically assign but manually review them to emulate the first glance the |
| 38 |
unavailable dev would have taken. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Obviously, there should not be too many bugs which would be automatically |
| 41 |
assigned to developers which are away anyway. |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives