On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Colin Walters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 14:03 -0400, Andrew Overholt wrote:
>> * Stephen John Smoogen <email@example.com> [2008-05-09 13:53]:
>> > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Colin Walters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > > What would you guys think about having a subset of Java packages be
>> > > owned by a Java group?
>> Tom Fitzsimmons was going to start a Java SIG. Perhaps this can tie in
>> with that?
> Yeah, that makes sense.
>> > > [...]
>> > I think that would help with coverage of issues. The main problem is
>> > making sure that someone is taking ownership of a problem in the group
>> > so that something does not just get 'oh I thought Colin was working on
>> > it?'
>> Yeah, that's my only issue as well. And it annoys me when I file a bug
>> and see it go to email@example.com or something since there's no
>> guarantee anyone's watching that alias.
> That is a valid concern - however, since Fedora is in general a
> community project, there's no guarantee that a bug will get a response
> even if it's assigned to an actual person.
s/in general a community//
I have had more than my share of RH bugs that sat in UNASSIGNED for a
.. and I worked there at the time.
> As for knowing that someone's working on a bug - Bugzilla provides a
> mechanism for someone to take ownership of a bug (change state to
> ASSIGNED, reassign to your email address).
> I think in practice, having more people see issues and work on them
> collectively will work out better than individual fiefdoms.
That is true... as long as the workflow is clear.
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list