Blocker process: tracker bug / whiteboard naming proposal
Bruno Wolff III
bruno at wolff.to
Tue Jan 22 20:19:14 UTC 2013
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02:09 -0800,
Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:09 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>2. (bwolff) "I think we can live without prefixes for the whiteboard.
>There could be cases where a bug is freezeexception for alpha and
>blocker for beta, but those could be handled by not marking the state
>for past the next type of release. The simplicity of naming probably
>gains more than the extra effort needed for a few bugs."
>Assuming you mean 'suffixes' not 'prefixes' - so your proposal is just
>to use Accepted and Rejected - then again, I don't like that. "There
>could be cases" where a bug has multiple states is putting it much too
>weakly - there are such cases, a lot of such cases, it's something we do
>all the time. We can't just handwave it away. I don't think the
>'simplicity' of Accepted vs. AcceptedBlocker is worth that at all. In
>fact, a whiteboard field which just says 'Accepted' is probably more
>confusing than one which says 'AcceptedBlocker', if you don't know the
I was suggesting not using 'alpha' or 'beta' in the whiteboard names. But
perhaps I was confusing the blocker aliases with the whiteboard names and
we aren't using alpha or beta in those now.
More information about the test