Re: [platform-swt-dev] Using 'triaged' keywordinsteadofswt-triaged@xxxxx

[Andrey Loskutov <loskutov@xxxxxx>]

I fully agree with Leo. 
"Assigned" means for me the assignee is working or planning to work on the bug. Using this as "triaged" flag is counter intuitive and sets wrong user expectations. 

Most users comimg from environments where "assigned" means exactly that. The fact that some Eclipse projects used this differently for many years is not an argument if the few remaining committers want change that.


Am 15. Juni 2017 16:58:39 MESZ schrieb Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> There are already 600+ bugs with the "Triaged" keyword in the keyword
>
>list.
>Please... In the Eclipse top-level project there are exactly 6 bugs
>with 
>that keyword and guess who has set it?
>
>> Can you explain why you prefer to use "Assigned" status to mean
>triaged 
>instead of using the existing "Triaged" keyword? 
>Because it's the process we use for over 15 years. Because it's faster
>to 
>just assign a bug than fiddling with the keyword field.
>
>Dani
>
>
>
>From:   Leo Ufimtsev <Leonidas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To:     "Eclipse Platform SWT component developers list." 
><platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date:   15.06.2017 16:35
>Subject:        Re: [platform-swt-dev] Using 'triaged' keyword 
>insteadofswt-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx?
>Sent by:        platform-swt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Daniel Megert
><daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>wrote:
>> I also assumed that "assigned" means that someone is assigned to work
>on 
>this bug.
>Correct and that is why the bugs assigned to *-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx are
>in 
>the NEW and not the ASSIGNED status.
>
>-1 for a new keyword, but getting rid of the *-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>assignee. That would align the only two projects (Platform UI and SWT)
>to 
>all others. All other projects mark their triaged bugs by leaving them
>in 
>the "normal" inobx, i.e. *-Inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx and simply change the
>status 
>to ASSIGNED.
>
>@Daniel, "Triaged" is not a new keyword, it is already part of the
>keyword 
>list and it's actively being used. There are already 600+ bugs with the
>
>"Triaged" keyword in the keyword list.
>As mentioned above, you can have keywords listed in the search results,
>so 
>it's easy to distinguish. Keywords can also be added/removed in bulk,
>so 
>it's easy enough to manage them.
>
>My concern is that using "Assigned" to mean "New and Triaged" is not 
>intuitively clear to the user. Where as having a bug assigned to 
>platform-swt-inbox and status "New" with the keywords "Triaged, 
>helpwanted" is much more clear.
>
>Can you explain why you prefer to use "Assigned" status to mean triaged
>
>instead of using the existing "Triaged" keyword? In what way would it
>make 
>bugzilla easier for outside users to read/understand bugzilla or why
>would 
>it be easier/faster to use "Assigned" instead of "Triaged" keyword?
> 
>
>If we decide to to this, we should ask the webmaster to mass move the 
>existing -triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx over to  *-Inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx and set the 
>status to ASSIGNED (without sending e-mails).
>
>I don't mind this being done for platform-ui, but for SWT I'd rather
>work 
>my way through existing swt-triaged bugs and check if they're actually 
>still valid. (like maybe do 10-30 bugs/day etc..), weed out duplicates 
>etc..
>
>
>
>Dani
>
>
>
>From:        Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To:        "Eclipse Platform SWT component developers list." <
>platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date:        15.06.2017 08:40
>Subject:        Re: [platform-swt-dev] Using 'triaged' keyword instead 
>   
>   ofswt-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx?
>Sent by:        platform-swt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I also assumed that "assigned" means that someone is assigned to work
>on 
>this bug.
>
>+1 for changing the process.
>
>Best regards, Lars
>
>Am 14.06.2017 11:11 nachm. schrieb "Leo Ufimtsev"
><Leonidas@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>Hello Niraj,
>
>Thank you for your reply.
>
>I think in general since SWT is a public project, we should aim to make
>it 
>as clear and simple as possible for users to find bugs and make it easy
>
>for them to understand where things are with the bug. They shouldn't 
>understand "our" work flow, but it should be pretty obvious how things
>are 
>just at a glance. 
>In turn, we should adapt our work flow, in as much as possible, to meet
>
>the goal above.
>
>To avoid ambiguity, "Triage" is a quick process by which we fix the 
>meta-data of a bug. (e.g check for duplicates, make sure it's assigned
>to 
>correct component, [optionally] test to see if bugs reproduce, etc..). 
>It's a  quick evaluation of the 'quality' of a bug. See:
>https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/How_to_triage
>I.e, triage does not mean someone will actually work on the bug. It's
>just 
>a quality check for a bug.
>
>I think having a bug in "assigned" and on
>platform-swt-inbox@eclipse.orgis 
>ok if someone (or a group of people)  are actually actively working on
>the 
>bug. But using "assigned" to mean "triaged", (meaning it could take a
>year 
>or more before anyone starts working on a bug), would not set proper 
>expectations to users who are reading the bug.
>If the bug is on "new", then users can ping us on the mailing list and
>ask 
>us to look into the bug. But if it's assigned, then it can be ambiguous
>/ 
>unclear about the progress of the bug.
>
>To answer some points:
>
>1) Keyword in Query
>- Keyword field is also not visible in the bugzilla query results page,
>
>whereas Status field is.
> 
>It is actually with a little tweak: You can add keywords via the
>"change 
>columns" button such that it appears in the search results:
>
>
>
>Once configured, keyword will always be there.
>
>
>2) Status 
>- Anyone looking at the bug would look at the Status and Target fields,
>
>rather than the Keyword field.
>
>That's true. But they will see "ASSIGNED" and and think that someone's 
>working on it, where as in fact it's just in the queue to be worked on.
>In 
>such case "NEW" would be a more accurate description of the bug status.
>But you make a good point. Perhaps we could post a comment like "we
>should 
>fix this" or "we should investigate", to help people identify the
>progress 
>of the bug thou?
>
>3) Duration
>we have been doing this(NEW to ASSIGNED even without assigning to a 
>person) for so long
>
>Doing something for a long time doesn't mean it's the most user
>friendly 
>way of doing it thou :-)
>
>4) Other projects
>also other Eclipse projects also following the same.
>
>But other projects are also using keyword "triaged" as well thou. If
>you 
>search for "triaged" keyword, there are 600+ bugs:
>
>
>So it seems we have a choice about how we go about doing it. 
>
>
>5) Individual vs team:
>So, for us ASSIGNED status means either assigned to an individual or a 
>team.
>
>Well, if something is assigned to a team, the underlying assumption is 
>that it will be fixed/looked/investigated. But what we're doing is 
>assigning it to a team means the bug was "triaged", which can be 
>ambiguous/confusing.
>
>
>
>So to summarize, I suggest something along the line of the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Niraj Modi <niraj.modi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>Hi Leo,
>Yes, your point is valid. But, we have been doing this(NEW to ASSIGNED 
>even without assigning to a person) for so long and also other Eclipse 
>projects also following the same.
>So, for us ASSIGNED status means either assigned to an individual or a 
>team.
>
>Possible reasons which I see why this must have got into practice:
>- Anyone looking at the bug would look at the Status and Target fields,
>
>rather than the Keyword field.
>- Also Keyword field is also not visible in the bugzilla query results 
>page, whereas Status field is.
>
>Thanks & Regards,
>Niraj Modi
>
>
>From:        Leo Ufimtsev <Leonidas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To:        "Eclipse Platform SWT component developers list." <
>platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date:        06/06/2017 07:19 PM
>Subject:        Re: [platform-swt-dev] Using 'triaged' keyword instead
>of 
>       swt-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx?
>Sent by:        platform-swt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Lakshmi P Shanmugam <
>lakshmipriya.bms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi Leo,
>
>+1 to stop moving bugs to swt-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>To mark the bug as triaged, we could change the Status field of bug
>from 
>NEW to ASSIGNED. Some developers already do this, but not consistently.
>May be all of us could follow this? We should update this in the triage
>
>page as well (once we agree).
>
>I have concerns that  using "Assigned" status could be miss-understood
>as 
>someone actually working on the bug (See workflow diagram below)
>
>I.e, using "assigned" in this way might make users think that someone
>is 
>working on the problem, where as in fact the bug is just in the queue
>to 
>be worked on. (Think of users who stumble into bugs through
>stackoverflow 
>or google..)
>
>The 'triaged' keyword is a bit less intrusive and still allows us to 
>filter bugs as triaged and non triaged.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.16/html/how.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>Thanks & Regards,
>Lakshmi P Shanmugam
>
>On 2 June 2017 at 00:42, Leo Ufimtsev <
>Leonidas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>(I've had some issues with the mailing list, sorry if you received this
>
>message multiple times).
>
>Hello folks,
>
>I propose a change in how we triage bugs:
>
>Our traditional triage (1*)  procedure is to inspect new bugs for
>proper 
>classification, presence of a snippet etc and then re-assign those bugs
>
>from 
>platform-swt-inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx
>to:
>swt-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>However the problem here is that some developers follow 
>platform-swt-inbox@xxxxxxxxxxx, but not swt-triaged@xxxxxxxxxxx. So 
>triaged bugs seem to get less attention.
>
>(Side note: their name is also quite similar (Project-SWT-Inbox) vs (
>Project-Inbox))
>
>I propose instead that we add the 'triaged' keyword to bugs that were 
>triaged and leave them assigned to Project-swt-inbox.
>
>As for current bugs, we could slowly migrate all bugs to 
>platform-swt-inbox and add 'triaged' keyword as we go along, closing 
>irrelevant/old bugs. (as oppose to a bulk update).
>
>I could update the relevant documentation for the job at hand. (1*).
>
>Thoughts?

--
Kind regards,
Andrey Loskutov

http://google.com/+AndreyLoskutov