[17243] in Athena Bugs
Transaction flagging
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Wed Oct 6 15:37:44 1999
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:37:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199910061937.PAA25147@small-gods.mit.edu>
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
To: bugs@mit.edu
From now on, transactions in the bugs discuss meeting should be
flagged if any of the following is true:
* They have been identified as "not our problem" (mail
forwarded to locker maintainers, hotline, etc.), and the
user has been notified of the forwarding.
(Bug reports on f_l-supported locker-software are our
problem.)
* They have been fixed in the source tree and the user has
been notified of the fix.
* They are a response to a transaction which has been flagged
for one of the first two reasons.
Leave transactions unflagged if they correspond to an unfixed bug
which is our problem. Spam should be deleted from the meeting, not
flagged. (jweiss is taking care of deleting spam for now.)
Listing unflagged transactions will help us identify unfixed bugs and
may provide a rough indication of what bug reports haven't been
acknowledged. (We need more than one bit to distinguish between
"still open" and "no one has acknowledged yet," but looking at the
recent unflagged transactions might give clues.) This transaction and
transactions prior to it are probably mostly unflagged, so any
reporting tools or whatnot should start listing at 17244.
The full-time staff members on source-developers will have bits to
flag transactions shortly, as will ajfox, ccount, and alexp.
We will probably generate a weekly list of unflagged transactions from
17244 onward to be sent to a new list where it can be ignored by
developers concerned about bug reports.
I will be examining the Debian bug-tracking system, which would let us
get more benefits for more work, to see if it looks reasonable for us.
But for now, we're flagging transactions, which will give us some
benefits.
