Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't think we need decicated bug transferrers. Typically, when someone
reports a problem by email, the first step is that some developer or other
expert responds (unless the reporter gets blown away by fellow users as
clueless :-)). So the natural extension of this process would be that the
person doing the analysis records the problem.
Yeah, that sounds like it would work.
I still think it would be a good idea to have one or two people actively in charge of the overall health of the bug repository --- cross-linking duplicate bugs, making sure fixed bugs get closed out, in general correcting misinformation when they find it. This wouldn't be a large time commitment AFAICS, but without somebody applying pressure in the right direction I think that the general quality of information in the database would inevitably slide downhill.
You have described a good part of my professional life in the last 3 years ;-) I had a meeting every morning with product/project management to review/triage bugs and in turn I would spend hours asking my staff "What is happening with bug xyz?". I lived off the bug system (bugzilla and/or ClearQuest). Getting developers used to it is still a hassle - I once had to send out an email that said in effect "if you aren't working on a defect assigned to you then you aren't doing your job."
In a volunteer project things work somewhat differently, of course, but the housekeeping functions are still essential.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
