package shepherding

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hi Jef,

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 10:46, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >
> > + Give package shepherds bugzilla permissions so they can 
> > actually modify bugs.
> 
> That process is in place... finally, its just woefully inefficient. 
> Since having the ability to get community editting rights, my goal has
> been to get one or two people rights every week. I have not met that
> goal for a variety of reasons, some of which are out of my control being
> internal red hat communication issues.

	Okay, its good to know this has started anyhow.

> > + Come up with a triage guide that explains to shepherds how they 
> >    should:
> 
> Why re-invent the wheel... gnome's guide to triage works and I use as a
> reference repeatedly in announcements. I'm tempted to just steal the
> document and replace Gnome with Fedora. 

	Yeah, GNOME's triage guide is a great start point - although, there are
differences in process, so it would be good to have a Fedora one ... but
you're right, we can get to that later ...

> > - Set the bug's priority/severity
> 
> Just want to comment on this, I've been in conversations with fedora
> developers about these fields...and as far as i can tell these fields
> are not used consistently by fedora developers...which makes its
> difficult for triage to use effectively..so i'm inclined to ignore these
> fields completely.

	Just because they're not really used now, doesn't mean that can't
change. A good starting point would be to pick a package, ask the
package maintainer how he'd like the fields use and go through each of
the bugs setting the fields.

> The rest of those bullet items, all have their own particular wrinkles
> that the few of us who do have triage rights are trying to
> wrap our heads around,

	Yeah, I can appreciate that - I'm still figuring it out too. It would
be good though if we could have a general "bugzilla.redhat.com policy"
doc or something. Would you have the time to start compiling that?

	e.g. we were discussing today on irc whether its valid to mark a RHEL
bug as a dup of a Fedora bug. The conclusion we came to was:

 <markmc> if its sufficient to be fixed in a future release
 <markmc> mark it as a dup
 <markmc> if it needs to be fixed now, then leave it open
 <markmc> and include a link to the dup

> -jef"fedora developers are like information pinatas...you blindly poke
> them hard a few times you get rewarded with information spewed out all
> over the floor"spaleta

	Oi ! :-)

Cheers,
Mark.