launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Bjorn Tillenius <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 05:40:34PM +0700, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Bjorn Tillenius <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:02:11AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >>On Dec 07, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Tim Penhey wrote:
> >>
> >>>> My hunch is that people are already using tags in an almost rigorous
> >>>> way to model this.
> >>>
> >>>Yes we do, but I think we should still look to add components at some stage.
> >>
> >>I agree.  I don't think tags are actually the right fit for this, though
> >>they're the best we have right now.  Some things you could do once you have
> >>proper components:
> >>
> >> * auto-assign bugs in that component to a person/team for triage
> >
> >It depends on what you mean with "auto-assign". I don't think the bug
> >should actually be assigned to someone, rather a team/person would be
> >responsible for a component, and would easily see which bugs he needs to
> >triage.
> 
> If you assign NEW bugs meeting criteria X to team Y, it is visible to
> everyone that team Y has chosen to be responsible to triage these bugs.
> 
> If you just provide views so that people in team Y can easily see NEW
> bugs meeting criteria X, it is not visible to other people. We have a
> blank assignee despite the fact there are actually people responsible
> for moving the bugtask forward. Why are we hiding this rather important
>     information?

I'm not saying that we should hide the information. Today we do a
terrible job at highlighting the triaging process. I'm just not
convinced that overloading the assignee is the way to go here, though.

Having a bug assigned to someone gives the message "this bug belong to
the assignee, don't you touch it!". I don't think that's a good message,
since we want to encourage people to help triaging the bugs.



-- 
Björn Tillenius | https://launchpad.net/~bjornt