On 08/14/2016 05:35 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Some initial items it was suggested the WG look into is > * The b.g.o workflow, bugs should not be considered fixed until the > fix has reached the stable tree. Today the InVCS keyword exists for > this purpose, but it is used to varying degree amongst developers. > Will a workflow change to introduce a new status, e.g RESOLVED > NeedsStable (name for illustration purpose only) incentivize > developers to not close bugs before it is fixed? >
(Please add me to the wg-stable alias) Bugzilla helps me get things done. It lets me split up the things I have to do into manageable sub-things and then organize them into a dependency graph and sort them in terms of the amount of time it will take and the return on investment. Once that's done -- and when I have some free time -- I can always pick something from the list assigned to me that fits the hole in my free time snugly. If we have to wait for a fix to hit stable before I can close a bug, who should I assign it to? I don't want 200 bugs, that I can do literally nothing about, assigned to me for years while I wait for them to get stabilized. It's also going to kill my motivation knowing that, no matter how hard I work, my bug count is never going to go down. Right now, at least I can close a bug after I fix it. The STABLEREQ is a separate bug, clearly identified, and created at my leisure or a user's request (I would still prefer they be assigned to someone else since I can do absolutely nothing to help). If I filter the STABLEREQs out of my list, I retain the satisfaction of closing a bug when I fix it.
