On 11 April 2013 15:52, Abhinandan Prateek <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>> >>>I will start with an example: A critical bug (CLOUDSTACK-1941) that is >>>blocking a release (4.1) is not picked up by any community member for 5 >>>days ! >>>The reason being that it is a UI issue but not that clear from the desc, >>>the nature of the bug is known after someone spends time on it. >>> >>>Now is it wrong to ask the community members who have expertise on UI to >>>fix it, in a bid to help Chip get the release out ? >>> >>>A set of guidelines are necessary so that this whole confusion about bugs >>>getting assigned is cleared up. I will start by proposing some simple >>>rules: >>> >>>1. Never assign bugs that are not critical or blocker unless they meet >>>any >>>of the below condition. >> >>Never would be too lenient. Maybe assign it after 7-8 days since they >>don't need immediate attention. > > 7-8 days is a huge time lost. I was suggesting that this to be 3 days. Let > other community members chime in too. >
Just to note: contributors will enter anytime. They don't necessarily know of our release roadmap when they come in looking to contribute. And typically they'd be looking at low hanging fruit - ie not blocker, criticals. If you're saying 'x days are lost' then that doesn't make much sense to an external contributor, x days based on what? If a bug is blocking someone else's progress then the person who is blocked should make noise on this list so the appropriate person can fix it. I think the issue this thread is trying to address is assignment of bugs in the background without community participation and/or knowledge. Also I don't think bugs are getting fixed immediately after assignment as you indicate. Bugs go between Triager 1 to Triager 2 to Developer 3 and then Developer 3 assigns it to the Developer 4 who fixes the bug. Instead - Developer 4 should have got to it first or explained the nature of the fix if he hasn't the time to fix it. Which doesn't happen either. As Alex proposed, when someone takes up a bug they should mark it in progress so that we know work is on going. Instead if Triagers are just assigning bugs based on some kind of weird LRU-cache in their head of who's (usually $dayjob stakeholder) the rightful owner I find it exclusionary to community participation. There is no contest on the bugs being assigned by the RM that are essential to be fixed for a release. So I agree with you on that.
