On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Guillaume Maudoux (Layus) < layus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Furthermore, I think that every issue should be assigned to someone. Being > assigned to an issue would mean that you are responsible for its progress, > like pinging the maintainers, not for fixing the problem by yourself (but > you still can). > I think this is a key point. While we can't really hope for 0 open issues/PR, maybe we should be striving towards 0 unassigned issues/PR. May I suggest a policy where we "liberally" assign issues/PR to each other. The lifecycle of an issue/PR would then look something like this: - First triager comes up with his best guess as to who could be useful on the issue/PR, maybe based on `git log` - First assignee may decide that he isn't the best person to look at this and reassigns further - Hopefully the iterative process lets assignment converge towards the right expert Of course the downside of such a process is that major contributors whose time is already stretched thin are going to end up with a disproportionately high share of issues/PRs assigned to them. However they are also most likely to know who is capable of tackling the issue/PR and further re-assign it, or to request help by adding a tag like `status: need-help`? The key here would be that we shouldn't get rattled if we get assigned an issue/PR. All it means is "I think you know more about this than I do, feel free to pass it on to someone else if aren't the right person or can't handle this with the appropriate urgency". Thoughts?
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
