Bug Triage (was Re: scheduled transactions make bad transact ions with 1.8.9 ?)

[Derek Atkins]

"Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI)" <volker at mail.nih.gov> writes:

> I was thinking to look at the oldest bugs first hoping that most of those
> could be closed out because they can not be reproduced in the newer
> versions.

True.

> Maybe the easiest for now would be to one of us start from the top while the
> other starts at the bottom or one takes the bugs with even bug numbers while
> the other one looks at the odd ones.  I'm OK with any approach.

I'll let you two work it out (or anyone else who wants to volunteer).
If you want to write up a 'triage process' and put it on the wiki,
that would be great.  Feel free to link it off the FAQ or, better, the
developer page.

> Here is a question that came up yesterday when I looked at a (randomly
> selected) bug (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143992).
> One could argue that the reported bug is a feature which doesn't need to be
> addressed.  How should bugs like this be handled?  Should we merely state
> that the behavior has been confirmed and leave it up to the developer to
> decide what should be done?

IMHO this _is_ a bug.  A low priority bug but a bug nonetheless.
Compare that to bug #143722 which is clearly an enhancement request.
The line is certainly fuzzy between mis-behavior and new feature.

> -- Volker

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available