On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 12:07 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The benefit to the developer would be in properly assigning the
> the right component, or getting enough useful information out of the
> reporter. Such things should be evident without any other marking by a
> triager. Either there was value added to the bug and visible to the
> maintainer, or there was nothing more to add. In either case, the value
> to the maintainer is there whether the triager has left footprints or
> not, so it seems that the actual value of the /footprint/ is to prevent
> multiple attempts at triaging.
No, the idea is to allow developers to pay attention mainly to issues
that have been triaged. To do this they need to know which are which.
But there's not much point arguing about this, as all proposals allow it
Sure, I always pictured triage as a added bonus one might get on some
bugs, but never going to be to the point where as maintainers we'd just
ignore untriaged bugs.
> Triage can accomplish all of
> their goals without ever touching the bug state. Why spend time and
> effort fighting over something that clearly doesn't matter?
Because it's the status quo, and changing it requires either significant
upheavals in existing bugs, or a period of confusion where multiple
methods are in use. Either of these is a 'cost', so we have to
demonstrate a sufficient benefit to make it worthwhile.
It's only been the "status quo" for a very short period of time in
relation to the lifespan of Fedora itself, and while there is a one time
cost, it's IMHO lower than an ongoing cost of frustration and anger over
continued quibbling over bug state meanings.
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!