<div dir="ltr">I disagree.<div><br></div><div>While is true manage the tickets have cost, is good have a record of things we want to do,</div><div>even when we don't have the resources today to do it. More in the context of a project</div> <div>where we have volunteers some times more, some times less.</div><div><br></div><div>Just my two cents ...of pesos :)</div><div><br></div><div>Gonzalo</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwnarvaez@gmail.com" target="_blank">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> What I'm saying is that the "would be nice" to fix will never be fixed, they will keep accumulating and we will waste triage time on them over and over. Better to just wontfix them, people can always send patches if they care. Plus we tell them clearly it's up to them to do something if they need them fixed.<div> <br></div><div>IMO it's really really important to aggressively close stuff we are not realistically going to fix soon. Otherwise either we waste more time triaging than fixing or we don't triage enough and the bug tracker becomes useless.</div> <div><br></div><div>Just my two cents. We could also keep "low" for now and see if it really grows too much to be worth retriaging over time. In my experience it's always does but it would be nice to be proven wrong.</div> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> <div><br>On Thursday, 10 April 2014, Gonzalo Odiard <<a href="mailto:godiard@sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">godiard@sugarlabs.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr">Well, maybe call iy "normal" or "low" instead of "minor", but we need a way <div>to separate the tickets we _need_ fix, the tickets we _want_ fix,</div><div>and the tickets _would_be_nice_ fix.</div> <div>We have almost 250 tickets, if we can solve 50 tickets in these 2 months,</div><div>is important know what are the best candidates.</div><div><br></div><div>Gonzalo</div></div><div><br><br><div> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> This is probably going to be a bit controversial, but I think if something is worth marking minor then it's probably not worth tracking. We will never get to fix the minor but we will waste time triaging and retriaging them.<div> <div><br> <br>On Thursday, 10 April 2014, Gonzalo Odiard <<a>godiard@sugarlabs.org</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div> <div dir="ltr">+1 to check if are enhancements or defects.<div><br></div><div>About priorities, we can make something like:</div><div><br></div><div>blocker: regressions, crashes, serious bugs</div><div><br></div><div>major: bugs affecting the usability</div> <div><br></div><div>minor: other</div><div><br></div><div>Just a idea to start to discuss.</div><div><br></div><div>Gonzalo</div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><br><br><div> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Walter Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a>walter.bender@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > Something else to consider is what to do with priorities. It might make<br> > sense to set one when confirming bugs, it's hard to get right without<br> > spending a lot of time really but maybe helpful for contributors even if not<br> > very accurate.<br> <br> </div>I think we have too many categories for priorities: IMHO, either it is<br> a blocker or it is not.<br> <span><font color="#888888"><br> -walter<br> </font></span><div><div>><br> ><br> > On Thursday, 10 April 2014, Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> >><br> >><br> >><br> >> On Thursday, 10 April 2014, Gonzalo Odiard <<a>godiard@sugarlabs.org</a>> wrote:<br> >>><br> >>><br> >>><br> >>><br> >>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>><br> >>> wrote:<br> >>>><br> >>>> On Wednesday, 9 April 2014, Gonzalo Odiard <<a>godiard@sugarlabs.org</a>><br> >>>> wrote:<br> >>>>><br> >>>>><br> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>><br> >>>>> wrote:<br> >>>>>><br> >>>>>> This is an interesting blog post with a paragraph about GNOME triaging<br> >>>>>><br> >>>>>> <a href="http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/enabling-participation/" target="_blank">http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/enabling-participation/</a><br> >>>>>><br> >>>>>> Interestingly it's pretty much exactly the same approach I followed<br> >>>>>> with the triaging I had done with 0.100. It would be good to have a simple<br> >>>>>> set of rule like that written down before the meeting. I think the way we<br> >>>>>> triage has a huge impact on lowering contribution barriers,<br> >>>>>><br> >>>>><br> >>>>> +1<br> >>>>><br> >>>>> We need at least verify all the "Unconfirmed" tickets. We can start<br> >>>>> now, don't need wait until the triage meeting.<br> >>>>> I assume, if the bug is confirmed, we should set:<br> >>>>> Milestone = 0.102<br> >>>>> Status = New<br> >>>><br> >>>><br> >>>> I wonder about Milestone. It seems like it would only be useful if we<br> >>>> assign different milestones to tickets and I'm not sure we can do that<br> >>>> without being able to allocate resources to fix them. It's also a time<br> >>>> consuming task.<br> >>><br> >>><br> >>> True.<br> >>><br> >>>><br> >>>><br> >>>>><br> >>>>> or close them if are not longer present.<br> >>>>><br> >>>>> Would be good if we can reset all the priorities to "Unassigned",<br> >>>>> in all the tickets with module=Sugar,the field content does not have<br> >>>>> any sense right now.<br> >>>><br> >>>><br> >>>> Do we want to use the field? Otherwise maybe there is a w</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br> Daniel Narvaez<br><br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Gonzalo Odiard<br><br><div>SugarLabs - Software for children learning <br></div></div> </div>