Talk:Bug management/Bug report life cycle/Need more info

From MediaWiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment[edit]

I prefer the "flag" way as used at bugzilla.redhat.com for two main reasons:

  1. There is no ambiguity. If you think the bug report needs further information to be acted upon, you need to specify who exactly you consider the person necessary to provide this information. You always have (machine-readable) data who needs to do something. That is not only interesting for the statistics, but also for dashboards and whines.
  2. IMHO statuses cause more unnecessary work. With PATCH_TO_REVIEW, after a Gerrit change has been merged or abandoned, you always have to re-read the whole bug report to see whether that now fixes the issue, whether previously it was UNCONFIRMED, NEW or ASSIGNED, etc. NEEDINFO would add another layer with the most obvious question: What do you do when someone submits a Gerrit change that fixes a bug report partially, but to resolve it completely, information from someone is needed? Is it more important to mark it PATCH_TO_REVIEW or NEEDINFO? Flags solve this problem nicely.

--Tim Landscheidt 11:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • For Bugzilla this item is on the backburner now, as we're concentrating on moving to Phabricator (which does not have flags like that). Will update the Bugzilla ticket soon. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)