Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to developers
lsatenstein at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 3 13:14:52 UTC 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Poelstra" <poelstra at redhat.com>
To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to
> Adam Williamson said the following on 04/02/2009 01:29 PM
>> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 21:22 -0700, John Poelstra
>>>> Hi, -devel-list
>>>> We in the Bugzappers team (part
of the QA group) are working to revise
>>>> our Wiki space, and
as part of that, various questions have arisen with
to Bugzilla procedures. A lot of the same issues have come up
>>>> this list in the recent
>>>> In general, it seems like Fedora
doesn't really have a properly defined
>>>> procedure for exactly
how a bug should flow. Every maintainer, reporter
triager has a slightly different idea of what each status or
resolution or keyword means, and when and by whom they should
>>> I think you are overstating a
problem that I'm not sure exists. We have
>>> defined the states
Why not improve on what is there?
>>> I think it is
great you want to tackle and clarify these things. Having
through a round myself with this process I guess I learned that
some ambiguity wasn't as harmful as I first thought. :)
You're right, of course. Somehow I'd forgotten about that flow.
>> So, I will revise the draft substantially. :) Here's my quick
>> The obvious bit of hand-waviness in the
graphic is the resolutions, we
>> don't define them (and it doesn't
list some at all). DUPLICATE is
>> simple, and ERRATA and RAWHIDE are
known: fixed bugs in official
>> releases are closed as ERRATA (should
be done automatically), and fixed
>> bugs in Rawhide are closed as
RAWHIDE (manually). Those we can write
>> down into that page without
any discussion, I think.
>> We do, however, need to define
what 'cantfix', 'wontfix', 'notabug',
>> and 'worksforme' are for. We
should also explicitly state which
>> resolutions aren't used for
Fedora (I think 'deferred', 'currentrelease'
>> and 'nextrelease' fit
into this category) so they don't get used on
>> Fedora bugs by
> Yes, I agree these were never clearly defined on the
wiki page and I
> can't remember why, though even now I'm wondering how
important it is
> that we use the right reason and what we would use it
>> It would really be nice, in fact, if we could have
Bugzilla only show
>> the statuses and resolutions appropriate to the
product the bug is filed
>> on...not sure if that's possible,
> I can ask the Red Hat bugzilla team about this.
In your schema for close, there is no indication that there should be or there is one more step, which is the return to originator (and perhaps others), with a notification that the bug is fixed, and ready for testing.
The end user is required to keep tabs for as long as the bug is open.
Would like email stating bug has been repaired, (if an advice has an email address).
5752 Avenue Lockwood.
Cote St. Luc Montreal Quebec H4W 1Y9 Canada
mailto:lsatenstein at yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the test