Re: web shortcut

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 08:23:51PM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2009/5/29 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> > Yes, that does sound too stupid.  :)   We already have the google
> > tracker.  Don't re-invent the wheel.
> 
> Thank you for the smiley.

Hey, you're the one that threw in the "too stupid" comment.  I'm
just agreeing with you.  Isn't nice when people agree with you? :)


> > "asignees" as in "Graham will work on this bug"?  We can use the
> > "owner" field for this.  I mean, nobody cares whether the bug was
> > added by me or Valentin.
> 
> True! Then this would mean "Graham _wants_ to work on this bug and he
> has marked it as 'mine' so he will fix it sooner or later because he
> sees himself like the perfect guy to do it, although right now he
> cannot find the time".

Yeah.

> The information on "creator" would be lost if we use the same field.
> Flyspray has "creator" plus "asignee".

Again, the "creator" is almost always just the Bug Meister of the
time.  That info is not useful in the least.

> > The problem is that we don't have enough bug fixers.  If we get so
> 
> If I'd see an easy [web] bug for me, I'd mark it as mine, think of it
> as a micro-compromise of a smaller grain, I see it as a gain on
> productivity because possibly huge tasks are never taken by their
> size.
...
> Well, remember that I am talking with the oncoming web project in
> mind, and we need to evaluate the current use given to the bugtracker
> as being (or not being) idoneous for working on the web.

Sure, and I'm not opposed to this on some principle.  If we find a
compelling case to be made to do this, then we could get a lot
more formal about bug tracking, discussing, assigning, etc.  But
at the moment, I can only see such things annoying the few people
we have fixing stuff.

Cheers,
- Graham