Proposal: Target tracker bugs

Kamil Paral kparal at redhat.com
Thu Mar 25 09:02:45 UTC 2010


----- "Jesse Keating" <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> My worry is the size of the target trackers, and our ability to
> appropriately manage them.  We're already running into this with the
> Alpha/Beta blocker list, maintainers don't know for sure if the bug
> has
> been "accepted" as a blocker or not.  Since anybody can make the bug
> blocking relationship, there is that period of uncertainty and doubt.
> 
> As much as I'd hate to move to using flags of some kind, I really do
> think there is room to distinguish between a /proposed/ blocker or
> target bug and an /accepted/ blocker or target bug.  Either a flag
> that
> goes from ? to + or a keyword added by one of us during our blocker
> review meetings, it should be really lightweight, no where close to
> the
> 3 ack system RHT uses for RHEL stuff.
> 
> ... discuss?


I haven't studied the whole thread properly, maybe someone already
proposed this, but what about instructing people to always mark
(proposed) blocker bugs with Target keyword, and then the
bugzappers team would change it to (accepted) Alpha/Beta/Blocker 
keyword? Then the Target keyword would be used just as a "queue" of
proposed blockers, and bugzappers team would decide which milestone
should be blocked.

Advantage:
* people don't have to know the Alpha/Beta/Final Release Criteria
to decide which milestone to block, they leave it up to a specialized
team

Disadvantage:
* documentation have to be changed, people informed
* no more "nice-to-have bugs" keyword


More information about the test mailing list