bug triage [was Re: Fedora Logo on the login screen]

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 11:58 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On 03/25/2013 11:53 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > The components have to stay the number of maintainers need to be
> > increased behind relevant component(s) and or those maintainers that are
> > unwilling or otherwise unable to due their due diligence in their
> > distribution maintainership for one reason or another be replaced with
> > once that are.
> 
> I believe they *are* doing their due diligence, it's just that they're
> upstream. I've fallen into the trap of reporting certain things
> downstream (even outside of GNOME) and finding out later that it's
> better to report upstream for certain components.
> 
> We can't expect our users to know which components in Fedora's bugzilla
> are *real* and which you're better off not bothering with.
> 
> Maybe if we can auto-detect a maintainer in our downstream is the same
> as a maintainer upstream, we pre-fill the bug template for their
> component with 'don't use this, file at bugzilla.upstream.org'? And then
> if the downstream maintainer ever changes, reactivating the component?

That's pretty horrible UI, isn't it? And somewhat discouraging after you
work through the rather slow process of (possibly) opening a BZ account,
selecting a product and then another product (however that weird first
two steps flies) and then a component, on three different screens, from
what is let's face it not the world's fastest Bugzilla instance.

It still might be better than the alternative, but I have to say I'm
kinda siding with Viking at least in theory here: Fedora is pretty
solidly designed around the belief that Fedora bug reports need to get
attended to. Of course, there's a question of practicality here, but
still.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net