| 1 |
On 05/25/2010 02:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 18 May 2010 02:02:01 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 3 |
>> could you please help the poor bug wranglers a bit?! The queue has reached |
| 4 |
>> 170 unassigned bugs... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> people dont seem to realize that bug-wranglers isnt just for re-assigning to |
| 7 |
> the proper maintainer. they are supposed to be doing basic triage, user |
| 8 |
> feedback, as well as cleaning up the bug. i shouldnt be seeing bugs assigned |
| 9 |
> to maintainers that have "${PN}-1.ebuild" as their subject, nor bugs that lack |
| 10 |
> basic things like `emerge --info` or build logs. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
As long as the status quo works I don't think we need to change it. |
| 13 |
However if we are running into issues with keeping up it might make |
| 14 |
sense to just have wranglers do assignments to maintainers and let the |
| 15 |
maintainers deal with the rest. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The reason is that the maintainer might be able to spot dups much more |
| 18 |
readily, or spot obvious solutions to bugs, where a wrangler might be |
| 19 |
hunting around. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
By all means wranglers should do what they can when they can, but keep |
| 22 |
in mind that if you yell at a wrangler any time they "do it wrong" a |
| 23 |
natural response of devs will be to not bother with bug wrangling or |
| 24 |
just looking for their own bugs in the list. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm not necessarily proposing any changes here, but in general we need |
| 27 |
to be careful about barriers to entry in projects that are undermanned. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives