| Re: [eigen] questions about Bugzilla workflow |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] questions about Bugzilla workflow
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:45:47 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CzrDU28e7s1WeQJQjjIIlYShs0OJZJTJhAqK/XZNh6w=; b=lXx7Iy7g5zd3aHj61i1s7yyToIDUbo8UWYfcBICyASGRpnRo1cE4ZH3Q5OhcBKn0Su FR/kxmlkl9AW6BOdaQdiBCjz49cV08ic92/+njN5yK5iMIxQ08YfN7yL152uomrT7uTD uDsOJ0WKJpHkRs8sSqWzLFjp1Il4l9VPMpP7Y=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RY1Ab2VS2Gn2Cah3933E3/Ga+x6K/vVyC7FPxxnnXijw2XzwKvozjOiG8YCWAuQLCT Zbw7wWcc/OU02UL8wpWtf/KBeH7jMl/7F+/6GKGEJl78utslXbvNdFrnm2TiaAh/GePg PzBMzQPkUnj0bLOuo4/i0pGjeJOHs4Oc/ib5o=
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have 2 questions about how we should be working with Bugzilla:
>
> 1. Should there be a "nobody" assignee? Currently, every bug is forced
> to be assigned to someone. There's a default assignee for each
> component.
> - good: this means that no bug is left with nobody caring for it
> - bad: this wrongly suggests that the assignee said he would fix it,
> and can send prospective contributors the wrong signal
>
> So: should we create a dummy "nobody" account, to whom we could assign
> bugs that aren't owned by anyone? If yes, should we make that the
> default assignee for all new bugs, or should we keep our system of
> assigning new bugs to real people by default, and letting them
> (re)assign to "nobody" if needed?
indeed, I was not 100% comfortable with automatic default assignees so
I think that's a good idea.
> 2. Are "milestones" useful? We have to file tracking bugs for each
> milestone anyway as that is the only way (AFAIK) of getting certain
> useful features such as dependency tree/graph. So what's the value of
> "milestones" compared to setting "blocks:" on the tracking bug?
1 - with milestones you don't have to remember/search for the respective bug ID
2 - with milestones you can have a list of all blocking issues for
each milestone integrated in a wiki page.
For 1, we could workaround it using aliases. For 2, the dependency
graph is probably fine too, maybe unless there are too many bugs and
the graph gets too big, I don't know.
So I would say more or less even, though milestones look slightly easier to me.
gael
> Benoit
>
>
>