On 12/19/2014 12:12 PM, Mark Capella wrote: > You can wind up with multiple contributors making the same statement > in rapid succession. Using the assignee field provides a "lock". > > Contributor has unambiguous ownership of the bug. > mentor has unambiguous ownership of the contributor (and the process). > > Is there a downside here that I don't see? You'll still wind up with > regulars on #introduction who have started relationship building with > the contributors assigning them to your bugs as is current practice.
I think it's all in the math. From my (limited) experience, the case where a bug gets assigned pre-patch and then abandoned is the 90% case, so mhoye's approach makes the most sense to me. If it were a 50/50 thing, then I might think differently. But I suppose that varies based on the difficulty of the bug, how proactive the mentor is, etc. And the cost of camping on bugs varies too -- if it's something irrelevant, it's fine to optimize for contributor encouragement. But I will commonly have bugs that I mark as mentored because they're not all that pressing at the time, then later when I discover they actually *do* matter now, I'm stuck because somebody's supposedly working on it. And to be honest, I'm not all that into actively monitoring first-time contributors. Once they've at least come up with a patch, I'm much more willing to spend time on them, but before that the cost/benefit is crap. And therefore it makes sense to shift some of that cost to the first-time contributors themselves, which mhoye's approach does nicely. (There's still plenty of overhead in getting first-timers set up with a build environment etc., but I'm willing to do that. Especially since our documentation is perfectly adequate there, so much of that is just repeating "rtfm".) Note that I'm on the JS team, and our bug difficulty distribution is probably entirely different from what this list is talking about. As are the development environment requirements. And in fact I *just* noticed what list I was replying to, but I'll leave this here as a data point anyway. :-) > > On 12/19/2014 03:03 PM, Ben Bucksch wrote: >> Jim Chen wrote, On 19.12.2014 20:48: >>> On 12/19/14 2:28 PM, Mark Capella wrote: >>>> I've had better luck with immediately assigning the bugs to new >>>> contributors, mostly to prevent conflicts with other new contributors. >>> +1. Bug 1092471 was a recent example of two contributors who, >>> unfortunately, worked on the same bug without each other knowing. I >>> think we should take steps to avoid that if we can. >> Shouldn't a simple comment "I'll be working on this in the next >> week/month" take care of this? >> _______________________________________________ >> mobile-firefox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > mobile-firefox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev _______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
