On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 15:00:49 C de-Avillez wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > El 08/04/14 22:35, C de-Avillez escribió: > > Sorry, I do not understand what you said above. Can you please rephrase? > > > > Yes: Although bug management does not apply to workflow bugs, they still > > have to be worked first by developers. So setting these as critical is a > > visual aid for them. > > Why? This is not a bug, it is a workflow. If this is not a workflow you are > *involved* with (as, for example, 100 papercuts) you *cannot* change > anything in the workflow bug without clearing it out with the people that > actually work them. > > It does not matter if my personal perception is "this is a critical > (workflow) bug for *me*": it is NOT a workflow under your responsibility. > > > El 09/04/14 00:52, Thomas Ward escribió: > > > In the "How to Triage" guide [1], even, there's a section labeled > > > "Special Types of Bugs" [2], which says that unless you know what you're > > > doing, you shouldn't touch those bugs. Status included. > > > > Because this is prone to mistake, perhaps we can warn in the Bug Statuses > > page itself that these bugs are not covered in that policy. > > Agreed. > > > El 09/04/14 00:52, Thomas Ward escribió: > > > That's my opinion on this. Let's move on to actually fixing bugs, not > > > dealing with how we set the importance on special bugs, of which our bug > > > triage rules don't really apply in the same way (if at all, case in > > > point merge requests, sync requests, security bugs (which have slightly > > > different policies), etc.). > > > > There's another relevant part of setting importances for all bugs > > You again are mixing real bugs and workflow "bugs". > > > , which is bugs that really need its importance to be set can be > > catalogued in work-flows made of list; without having items in these that > > cannot be cleaned up. > > > > For example, in the following work-flows: > > - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow> > > - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl/Final%20clean-up> > > - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Ubuntu%20Bug%20Weekend> > > > > Summarizing: While changing status for this bugs can disrupt development > > work-flow, setting their importance to a default value can be a visual aid > > for everyone. > > Sorry, this does not make sense for me: I will rephrase, as I understood > the above sentence: > > "while changing status for workflow bugs can disrupt development workflow, > I do not care. It is not my workflow." > > The importance will be set by the people working this workflow, if they so > want to. Otherwise it should be left as is.
Please, please, please! If you are not a developer involved in the relevant workflow of a workflow bug, leave it alone. You may think you are helping. Trust me, you are not. Scott K -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
