| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I find that often in schemes like this people get caught up designing the |
| 4 |
> optimal / perfect solution (which is often tricky) as opposed to using a |
| 5 |
> nice solution that works 95% of the time; but 5% of the time is wrong. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
++ |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'd be all for automated bug assignment. Usually when this comes up a |
| 11 |
bunch of hero bug wranglers step up and say it isn't needed, because |
| 12 |
we have hero bug wranglers. As long as people keep stepping up to do |
| 13 |
that I'm not going to tell them that they can't. However, if the bug |
| 14 |
queue ever does go out of control I'd be all for just auto-assigning |
| 15 |
them. If they rarely get assigned to the wrong people, then they can |
| 16 |
just reassign them. And nothing stops us from having a bugzilla query |
| 17 |
for "new bugs filed in last 24h" for people who want to take a quick |
| 18 |
look at recent bugs for trends or to help clean them up across |
| 19 |
projects. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives