On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Brendan Donegan < [email protected]> wrote:
> IMO, a team should also be looking at Triaged bugs when selecting new > tasks to work on, so if the bugs are genuinely Triaged and they have > enough information to go to In Progress (when a developer wants to work > on them) then I don't see the harm in general. I personally would tend > to look at both New and Triaged bugs when looking to pick up bug fixing > work on the projects I help maintain. > It all depends. There is NO one-size-fits-all that will work. The security team (as well as the kernel team, and others) have special workflows. One problem we have in launchpad is that there is no concept of workflow, all we have are bugs (as far as we are concerned). Workflow was hammered in bugs, using what launchpad provides. (Also, you have imposed yourself a limit -- "when looking (...) on the projects I help maintain". You do not go and change bugs on projects you DO NOT maintain. You actually may go in, but you will be more careful.) But, back to the issue at hand. The majority of security bugs shown with Alberto's search are *visibly* different from the "normal" bugs we deal with. I expect triagers to be careful on what they do -- if a certain bug looks different from the "common" (whatever it may mean) bug, STOP. Find why it is different. Don't assume that it is all the same. And, of course, we should document these special workflows, at least to allow triagers to identify them. ..C..
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
