RFC: bug-handling doc tweaks

[Robert Collins]

Poolie and I just had a chat about what bugs need to be worked on next
(in the context of 2.0 but also more generally).

http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/bzr.dev/developers/bug-handling.html

Its worth a refresher I think. The docs don't currently mention release
blockers in terms of priorities. Later on in the docs we do define how
we use targeting, so I think this is just a bug in the integration of
all the docs.

Secondly, having a lot of outstanding branches is bad.

Lastly (and this is a personal pet hate) having a bug assigned to
someone who isn't actually working on it leads to bugs staying stay for
extended periods.

So I propose to change the Priorities list to avoid the latter two
issues and include blocker bugs in the guidelines.
"
 Priorities
 The suggested priorities for bug work are:
 
+ 1. Progressing bugs targeted to a release.
+ 1. Get existing fixes through review and landed.
+ 1. Look at bugs already assigned to you, and unassign them
+    if you're not going to work on them at the moment
+ 1. Handle uncomfirmed bugs to the extent of deciding if its critical
+    or high.
+ 1. Fix bugs in priority order (claim the bug if its nontrivial).
- 1. Fix critical bugs
- 1. Get existing fixes through review and landed.
- 1. Fix bugs that are already in progress.
- 1. Look at bugs already assigned to you, and either start them, or
-    change your mind and unassign them.
- 1. Take new bugs from the top of the stack.
- 1. Triage new bugs.

It's not strict and of course there is personal discretion but our work
should be biased to the top of this hierarchy.
"

And under assignment
"
Assignment
Assigning a bug to yourself, or someone else, indicates a real intention
to work on that bug soon.
"

I'd like to add "Do not assign bugs to other people unless you are
confident they will work on them."

This is kindof a no-op statement to add, if someone has read the rest of
the page, but it does make it clear that the ability to assign in the
tracker is not the same as asking someone to look at the bug. (It is for
some people, but not everyone :)).

Thoughts?

-Rob


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090827/8ac50c71/attachment-0002.pgp