On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 14:03 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> * Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> [2008-05-09 13:53]:
> > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Colin Walters <walters(a)redhat.com>
> > > What would you guys think about having a subset of Java packages be
> > > owned by a Java group?
> Tom Fitzsimmons was going to start a Java SIG. Perhaps this can tie in
> with that?
Yeah, that makes sense.
> > > [...]
> > I think that would help with coverage of issues. The main problem is
> > making sure that someone is taking ownership of a problem in the group
> > so that something does not just get 'oh I thought Colin was working on
> > it?'
> Yeah, that's my only issue as well. And it annoys me when I file a bug
> and see it go to xdg-maint(a)redhat.com or something since there's no
> guarantee anyone's watching that alias.
That is a valid concern - however, since Fedora is in general a
community project, there's no guarantee that a bug will get a response
even if it's assigned to an actual person.
s/in general a community//
I have had more than my share of RH bugs that sat in UNASSIGNED for a
long time :).. and I worked there at the time. :)
As for knowing that someone's working on a bug - Bugzilla
mechanism for someone to take ownership of a bug (change state to
ASSIGNED, reassign to your email address).
I think in practice, having more people see issues and work on them
collectively will work out better than individual fiefdoms.
That is true... as long as the workflow is clear.
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"