Tom Lane wrote:
>Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>
>>I don't think we need decicated bug transferrers. Typically, when someone
>>reports a problem by email, the first step is that some developer or other
>>expert responds (unless the reporter gets blown away by fellow users as
>>clueless :-)). So the natural extension of this process would be that the
>>person doing the analysis records the problem.
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, that sounds like it would work.
>
>I still think it would be a good idea to have one or two people actively
>in charge of the overall health of the bug repository --- cross-linking
>duplicate bugs, making sure fixed bugs get closed out, in general
>correcting misinformation when they find it. This wouldn't be a large
>time commitment AFAICS, but without somebody applying pressure in the
>right direction I think that the general quality of information in
>the database would inevitably slide downhill.
>
>
>
You have described a good part of my professional life in the last 3
years ;-) I had a meeting every morning with product/project management
to review/triage bugs and in turn I would spend hours asking my staff
"What is happening with bug xyz?". I lived off the bug system (bugzilla
and/or ClearQuest). Getting developers used to it is still a hassle - I
once had to send out an email that said in effect "if you aren't working
on a defect assigned to you then you aren't doing your job."
In a volunteer project things work somewhat differently, of course, but
the housekeeping functions are still essential.
cheers
andrew
