[Libreoffice-qa] Bug Triage best practice: Change or not change assignee?
LibreOffice at bielefeldundbuss.de
Sat Apr 21 00:53:22 PDT 2012
Hello Nino, bello Bjoern, hello all,
IMHO "not change"! I can't remember that we ever discussed to modify
"Assigned to" related to "NEEDINFO", and it has never been used that
way, not in the various other projects using Bugzilla I joined, and also
not for LibO - except by Nino, who did not know how to use the Bugzilla
To be honest, I missed the change in the Wiki by Bjoern 2011-12-23,
23:59:40, I would have reverted it and asked for discussion because I
I believe it is a very bad idea to use that field to show who should
contribute additional information to the bug report, the "Assigned To"
field should remain reserved for the competent person person who will
fix the bug (or at least will manage the fixing), please also see
Bugzilla Help, and I never saw an other usage for that field (and I saw
a lot, you know.)
Of course, everything can be put on the test stand, but if you want to
modify something, you should have good reasons, but I can't see any.
a) If you believe it's an established standard to use "Assigned To" to
show from whom info is required, so please contribute examples from time
before before modification in the Wiki.
Currently I see 26 Bugs with NEEDINFO and assignee not
libreoffice-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org, most of assignees are
developers, many of them the developer assignee seems to have forgotten
to set Status to ASSIGNED, and most other ones nave got that assignation
by Nino last days.  shows 3 bugs with NEEDINFO + not default
assignee, all reporters.
So I can't see that the new Wiki text describes common sense or general
use, but it defines a new standard.
b) If you believe a problem has to be solved, please tell the problem
and explain how you want to solve it and what alternatives you excluded.
Currently I can't see a problem:
b1) The NEEDINFO mostly is joined with a comment "@dearreporter, can you
please add following information ...), what can be understood by the
reporter and is much better than a use of the "Assigned to" field
different to the Help explications he reaches clicking the link in
Bugzilla. I believe at least 99% of our Bugzilla users will expect that
information is required from reporter if nothing else is written. And
b2) Additionally for me an assignee different from default is an
indication that this but is out of QA "responsibility" and has found a
developer (or someone else who will lead the problem to a solution) and
no further "QA-action (currently) will be required; I believe most other
Bugzilla users think the same way.
c) Generally please do not modify existing proceedings without
discussion, people like me use information in Bugzilla for queries, and
every change breaks those queries and causes additional work (like this
d) IMHO it has become a standard that people add themselves to "assigned
to", this standard would be broken with the proceeding due to Wiki
e) I see one special case where a _self_assignition_ to "assigned to" of
a non developer can be useful and should be done (and I do so): If a bug
still needs longer, expensive research and someone decided to do that
(without having skills for a bugfix) he should add himself to "Assigned
to", what shows other users that currently here no other action is
required (what helps to avoid double expensive work on the same thing).
BTW: I do not believe that we need documented soliloquies like in Bug
Bug 47521, SCNR to leave a witty comment ;-)
So I suggest proceeding:
- only set Status NEEDINFO with text request in comment, but without
assignation to reporter
- if info is required not from reporter ad "infoprovider" key word.
- amend Wiki
@Nino: Thank you for the hint concerning inconsistence in manuals and
More information about the Libreoffice-qa