| 1 |
On 08/14/2016 05:35 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is |
| 4 |
> * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the |
| 5 |
> fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for |
| 6 |
> this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. |
| 7 |
> Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED |
| 8 |
> NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize |
| 9 |
> developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
(Please add me to the wg-stable alias) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Bugzilla helps me get things done. It lets me split up the things I have |
| 15 |
to do into manageable sub-things and then organize them into a |
| 16 |
dependency graph and sort them in terms of the amount of time it will |
| 17 |
take and the return on investment. Once that's done -- and when I have |
| 18 |
some free time -- I can always pick something from the list assigned to |
| 19 |
me that fits the hole in my free time snugly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who |
| 22 |
should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally |
| 23 |
nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get |
| 24 |
stabilized. It's also going to kill my motivation knowing that, no |
| 25 |
matter how hard I work, my bug count is never going to go down. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Right now, at least I can close a bug after I fix it. The STABLEREQ is a |
| 28 |
separate bug, clearly identified, and created at my leisure or a user's |
| 29 |
request (I would still prefer they be assigned to someone else since I |
| 30 |
can do absolutely nothing to help). If I filter the STABLEREQs out of my |
| 31 |
list, I retain the satisfaction of closing a bug when I fix it. |
Archives