ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Alberto Salvia Novella <es20490446e@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I think I got into too much verbosity. It is just I had to write 
a nail-biting letter to someone, and changed it for writing in this lists.

So excuse me: I will keep it clean an short next time.


David Alan Gilbert:
> "don't touch" is too strong a way to read 'assigned'

What happens is the bug will not be shorted as unassigned when looking 
for more bugs to fix.


David Alan Gilbert:
> it's reasonable for a technically knowlegable manager to sort through
> the fire-hose of incoming bugs and say 'they've got a good chance
> of knowing how to deal with that'.

It is about the stop that takes place while these people cannot look at 
those bugs: 95% are staying untouched and blocked.


David Alan Gilbert:
> So that suggests the way people are reading 'assigned' needs fixing.
> The only thing an 'assigned' should stop you doing is changing
> priorities/importances etc - there's no way it should stop you
> from proposing a fix on the bug (or upstream if you cc the
> person assigned).

The point is reducing work in progress by doing tasks one by one till 
finished, so we don't have an 80% half-done reports floating around 
which will eventually lapse there; and with them the 80% of work done.

In this context I think "assigned" should be understood as the person 
who is writing a fix right now. Something different looks like taking to 
excess of communication and lack of clarity.


Have a good day.