| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:02:05 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Quoting Ioannis Aslanidis <aslanidis@×××××.com>: |
| 5 |
>>> I would prefer to keep the keyword for Bugday Members to administer. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I don't think that sending mails would work well. If you want extra |
| 8 |
>> control/QA for bugday team members I would propose two different |
| 9 |
>> keywords: one for bugday candidates and one for confirmed bugday bugs. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Any dev could mark bugs as candidates easily and without delays while |
| 12 |
>> you could still reserve acknoledgement to you. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> ... And here I'm proposing three: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> BUGDAY (nomination) |
| 17 |
> BUGDAY-ACCEPTED (or whatever is thought appropriate) |
| 18 |
> NOBUGDAY (or BUGDAY-DECLINED, or BUGDAY-REFUSED, or...) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think the last one is over-engineering a bit; bugzilla keywords are |
| 21 |
not permanent so this will likely not help as much as one may think in |
| 22 |
practice. Old bugday keywords are visible in the activity trail. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-A |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> The latter would be for nominated bugs that were declined as inappropriate |
| 28 |
> for whatever reason, to help prevent them being nominated again. |
| 29 |
> Presumably there'd be a comment added explaining why as well, but the |
| 30 |
> keyword would be what shows up in someone's face if they're thinking about |
| 31 |
> keywording it BUGDAY. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 35 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 36 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
Archives