Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Governance - SysML 1.1 editors - semantics of ASSI

["Christian W. Damus" <give.a.damus@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Klaas,

I have the same understanding as you about the meaning of assigned state, when the assignee is an identifiable committer/contributor.  When the assignee is the inbox, that is the Papyrus team’s way of indicating that the triage process has confirmed the validity of a bug without actually assigning it to a specific person and milestone.

For myself, I try always to set the assigned state, myself as the assignee, and a specific target milestone when I actually schedule work on a bug.  It doesn’t mean that I’m starting to work on it, just that I am committing (as much as that is realistic) to completing it by that milestone.  A question for the team:  is it general practice to assign bugs to oneself before working on them?  I often see bugs resolved that are still assigned to the inbox.  And do we consistently use the target milestone field?

So, anyways, I don’t know whether it’s feasible for you to filter bugzilla queries to exclude assigned bugs that don’t have target milestones and/or are assigned to the inbox, because I would expect that many of those would actually be “in play” for this release.

Cheers,

Christian

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Klaas Gadeyne <Klaas.Gadeyne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Papyrus developers,

(This email focuses on the SysML 1.1 editors, although the question might
be considered more general)

As mentioned in Bug 427378, I noticed that there are quite a (whole) lot
of SysML 1.1 bugs in the ASSIGNED state (and have been in that state for
ages). I¹m not sure what the (agreed) meaning of assigned is in the
papyrus project, but to the end user it is currently _very_ unclear if
anything is going to happen to a bug in the ASSIGNED state. [*]

My personal definition of ASSIGNED would be that work is going to start on
that bug in a to-be-defined-but-fixed period starting from the moment the
bug is in the assigned state.

For instance, my _impression_ is that nothing is going to happen to (all)
the (non-critical) SysML 1.1 bugs unless somebody stands up and says
he/she wants to fund them, right?

Wouldn't it be more honest/realistic to either put these bugs in a
NEW/CONFIRMED state (or close these bug as CLOSED WONTFIX)?

BR,

Klaas

[*] This would for instance also allow to clearly answer (the tons of)
forum posts questions such as
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/1070659/


_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev