When you say it's understandable that people being paid to work on CloudStack full time engage in cookie licking, do you mean to say you think it is acceptable? Or do you believe we should be working to prevent it?
On 9 April 2013 19:14, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:32:58PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: > > > [Animesh>] Folks I wanted to get your opinion on auto-assignment > > > based on the component maintainers list. We can also create shared > > > issues filters based on components. Folks can subscribe to the > > > filters of interest and receive daily email notification. > > > > I have no opinion and am okay whichever way - auto-assign/unassigned. > > But these workflows should be _*clearly*_ mentioned to contributors > > and where they will go looking for them - wiki, website etc. > > > > > A non-sponsored new/old (casual/hippie) contributor would try to search > among unassigned issues, while managers/developers/committers whose $dayjob > allows them to work on ACS fulltime will tend to do 'cookie lickin' which > is understandable and will assure that someone gets the privilege to work > on it and their employers will make sure the task would be done :) > > I would prefer an environment where every contributor (sponsored or > otherwise) would assign the tickets themselves, and unassign if they cannot > do it or don't have time/resources for it. > > We've already seen several occasions where someone assigns an issue to > someone and we see cycle of assignments because the "assigner" had no clue > about the issue or did not really know who would could really resolve the > issue. Just saying. > > Cheers. > > Triaging and assigning issues at the time of release to > > contributors/committers by the Release Manager shouldn't be a problem > > at all as long as it's communicated (as Chip did for the RC bugs) > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Prasanna., > > > -- NS
