>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
>> It is good to assign bugs to people -- probably even if we end up
>> playing hot potato for a while. If a bug is assigned to you, you
>> should either try to fix it, diagnose it, or assign it to someone
>> else.
TW> Hm, I did that for a few, but it's not very easy to find the
TW> right person, in some cases. Bugs in the 're' module, should
TW> they go to amk or to /F ? XML stuff, should it go to Paul
TW> Prescod or some of the other people who seem to be doing
TW> something with XML ? A 'capabilities' list would be pretty neat!
I had the same problem when I was trying to assign bugs. It is seldom
clear who should be assigned a bug. I have used two rules when
processing open, uncategorized bugs:
* If you have a reasonable guess about who to assign a bug to,
it's better to assign to the wrong person than not to assign at
all. If the wrong person gets it, she can assign it to someone
else.
* If you don't know who to assign it to, at least give it a
category. That allows someone who feels expert in a category
(e.g. a Tkinter guru), to easily scan all the unassigned bugs in
that category.
>> You seem to be arguing that the sheer number of bug reports
>> bothers you and that it's better to have a shorter list of bugs
>> regardless of whether they're actually fixed. Come on! I don't
>> want to overlook any bugs.
TW> No, that wasn't what I meant :P
Sorry. I didn't believe you really meant that, but you came off
sounding like you did :-).
TW> Having 9 out of 10 bugs waiting in the buglist without anyone
TW> looking at them because it's too vague and everyone thinks not
TW> 'their' field of expertise and expect someone else to look at
TW> them, defeats the purpose of the buglist.
I still don't agree here. If you're not fairly certain about the bug,
keep it on the list. I don't see too much harm in having vague, open
bugs on the list.
TW> But closing those
TW> bugreports, explaining the problem and even forwarding the
TW> excerpt to the submittor *might* result in the original
TW> submittor, who still has the bug, to forget about explaining it
TW> further, whereas a couple of hours trying to duplicate the bug
TW> might locate it. I personally just wouldn't want to be the one
TW> doing all that effort ;)
You can send mail to the person who reported the bug and ask her for
more details without closing it.
TW> Just-trying-to-help-you-do-your-job---not-taking-it-over-ly
And I appreciate the help!! The more bugs we have categorized or
assigned, the better.
of-course-actually-fixing-real-bugs-is-good-too-ly y'rs,
Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4