On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:50 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
After Adam's comments, I changed the advice for 2-in-1 bugs to
point to
the stock reply (which asks reporters to do the split), and updated
that reply to be more polite and informative.
So this leaves the following decisions to make at the meeting:
* "Option 1", "Option 2" or other text for "How to Handle Bugs
in
Multiple Versions" section?
I guess Option 1 seems to be mostly preferred, so I'm OK with that one.
* Should a check for bugs filed in upstream Bugzillas be mandatory?
* Should triagers decide whether a bug should be handled upstream or
by Fedora, or should this be left to package maintainers?
I think we should probably discuss this with the maintainers rather than
coming to a unilateral decision on it.
* Should NEW triagers be asked to do NEEDINFO updates in 30 and 60
days if needed, or should this be left to triagers following the
NEEDINFO checklist?
I think we should ask triagers to take responsibility for following up
their own triaged bugs. We can have procedures to catch cases where this
isn't done, but I'm really not a fan, as I've written, of drive-by
triaging.
* After these issues are decided, is this draft ready to go live?
Suggested improvements which might be implemented before or after
deployment:
* Add references to GreaseMonkey buttons in checklist instructions
I'll do this later today, with reference to mcepl's shiny new generation
script.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net