1 |
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:31:28 +0100 |
4 |
> Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Well, before I became developer, I had a quite unproductive |
7 |
> > discussion on IRC with Jeroen on that matter (jer opting for status |
8 |
> > quo and telling me I have no idea what bug wrangling is :P) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I have no idea what you are talking about. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
I'd like to turn this discussion into a more productive direction (let's |
14 |
wrangle bugs, and not argue over who said what to who when). |
15 |
|
16 |
First, I'd like to say thanks to those who put a great deal of care into |
17 |
bug-wrangling, and I think all will agree that Jer does a LOT in this |
18 |
regard. It is very clear to me that when bugs get assigned to me that |
19 |
they've generally been well-triaged and I'm sure that a lot of cruft gets |
20 |
pruned before I even get an email. |
21 |
|
22 |
That said, part of me wants to think aloud about whether we're |
23 |
over-investing in triaging bugs in the queue and this is leading to the |
24 |
queue getting out of hand. The problem I see with our current bug-wrangling |
25 |
procedures (as documented on the official site) is that they seem a bit |
26 |
daunting to me. I see this problem at work all the time - procedures that |
27 |
are very complex either need to be an assigned job, or they need to be |
28 |
simplified. If they remain complex but free-for-all then nobody wants to |
29 |
touch them, since nobody gets yelled at individually if they don't step in, |
30 |
but if they step in and mess up suddenly they have egg on their face. |
31 |
|
32 |
Something that might help would be a "one touch" bug queue (think Getting |
33 |
Things Done). Wrangler looks at bug, and bug ends up in one of two |
34 |
categories IMMEDIATELY: |
35 |
1. Bug has required info and can be assigned to a maintainer. Go ahead and |
36 |
assign. |
37 |
2. Bug is missing required info or seems vague. Immediately add a comment |
38 |
stating what is needed, with link to website with bug submission procedure |
39 |
that wasn't followed, and resolve invalid. Comment should welcome submitter |
40 |
to re-open with the required info. |
41 |
|
42 |
This gets stale bugs out of the queue without a lot of fuss. It also means |
43 |
that everything in the queue needs attention and nobody spends time reading |
44 |
a bug just to find out that it is stuck and needs no attention by a |
45 |
wrangler. |
46 |
|
47 |
Also - I think we need to make other forms of triage a best-effort sort of |
48 |
activity. If a wrangler wants to try to triage a bug they should be welcome |
49 |
to try. If a wrangler notices a dup, they are welcome to handle |
50 |
accordingly. If a wrangler misses a dup or doesn't do triage, that is fine |
51 |
too, as long as they either resolve invalid or assign. That does mean a bit |
52 |
more bugspam for downstream devs, but it is pretty easy for me to spot dups |
53 |
for the packages I'm most familiar with, and it is much harder for a |
54 |
wrangler to spot them across the entire tree. |
55 |
|
56 |
The overall goal is to make wrangling simple, but still a value-add. We can |
57 |
leave room for those who want to do more. If we end up with a big pool of |
58 |
serious wranglers they can just post on -dev saying that they've got things |
59 |
under control and then those less serious about it can step out and allow |
60 |
for more triage. When the wranglers get underwater everybody else can step |
61 |
in and quickly clean up. |
62 |
|
63 |
I guess the question is whether the resulting shorter queue and lower |
64 |
latency is worth the tradeoff in having package maintainers get a few extra |
65 |
bugs that might have been avoided in triage. I'd be interested in Jer's |
66 |
perspective on how many bugs get squashed during triage. |
67 |
|
68 |
Thoughts? |
69 |
|
70 |
Rich |