On 2017-12-22, Kapetanakis Giannis <bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr> wrote: > But to be fair with the OP it all depends on dev's (mainly) > willingness to track/respond/close tickets. > > I say devs because these are the people who commit fixes of bugs and > so they should monitor/update this system as well. It's extra work for > them instead of developing... and I understand that.
I'm sure that often devs will do this, but sometimes not (maybe they'll forget, maybe they'll fix something without noticing that it relates to a ticket, etc). It needs someone to take responsibility for maintaining the database, if it's left *only* up to the developer fixing a problem you're just going to end up with the gnats database and hundreds (or was it thousands) of tickets in limbo again. > I don't see a reason @tech should be forwarded to this ticket system. Forwarded? No way! Same for bugs@ as tech@. It needs manual work to triage, identify what is a bug, follow up with the reporter to make sure the report is accurate and has enough information to be useful. Same whatever the entry point is. If reporters can add bugs to it directly, they need to go into a triage queue and *not* appear in the main system until that's done. The idea of a bug tracking system is to spread the work and help people remember things. It should *reduce* work done by devs because they no longer have to drag even the most basic information out of a reporter and figure out whether it's a bug or user error or a support request in disguise. If it means *extra* work for devs, it's not going to work.
