Let's have fun in bug triaging (Was: FYI & RFC: bug categorising)
- To: debian-www@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Let's have fun in bug triaging (Was: FYI & RFC: bug categorising)
- From: David Prévot <david@tilapin.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:10:50 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4DB4E63A.4070207@tilapin.org>
- In-reply-to: <20091212202008.GD29844@dedibox.ebzao.info>
- References: <20091210152536.GA15110@anguilla.debian.or.at> <20091212202008.GD29844@dedibox.ebzao.info>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
[ Links were broken in my previous mail ]
Le 12/12/2009 16:20, Simon Paillard a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:25:37PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Today I fiddled around a bit with the BTS, and this is what I managed:
>> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=www.debian.org&ordering=www-sort>
> [..]
>> bts user www.debian.org@packages.debian.org . usertag 1234 + packages
> [..]
> As mentionned in IRC, uncategorized bugs should be displayed first.
Still a problem.
>> More importantly I think it might make sense to use more categories,
>> but I haven't found ones that catch a fair bit to be really helpful
>> instead of just stretching the entry part.
>
> Split bugs about content or design/CSS ?
The default page now shows those (usertags between bracket):
+ Content [content]
+ Design [design]
+ Scripts [scripts]
+ Packages.debian.org [packages]
+ Planet.debian.org [planet]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=www.debian.org
The problem is that we lost the tags classification we used to have:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=old;src=www.debian.org
I also tried to provide both, but wonder if it's not a bit messy:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=www.debian.org-sort;src=www.debian.org
> An option is to add tag for directories, ex./News or /security/
> r /CD/ or /Bugs/.
Good idea, we can do both:
+ Bugs [bugs]
+ CD [cd]
+ Consultants [consultants]
+ Development [devel]
+ Distribution [distrib]
+ Documentation [doc]
+ Events [events]
+ International [international]
+ Intro [intro]
+ MailingLists [mailinglists]
+ Mirror [mirror]
+ Miscellaneous [misc]
+ News [news]
+ Partners [partners]
+ Ports [ports]
+ Releases [releases]
+ Security [security]
+ Users [users]
+ Vote [vote]
+ Packages.debian.org [packages]
+ Planet.debian.org [planet]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=dir;src=www.debian.org
Any thought, comment, other idea?
Once the directory triage will be polished, I wonder if we could contact
related group (-doc, -cd, -ports, etc.) to help us in fixing bugs they
are the most concerned with, or even address this in a “bits from the
WWW-Team” if we have other stuff to talk about…
Regards
David
P.-S.: my last mail to control in order to set this up:
user www.debian.org@packages.debian.org
usercategory www-team-type
* WWW-Team type [tag=]
+ Uncategorized []
+ Content [content]
+ Design [design]
+ Scripts [scripts]
+ Packages.debian.org [packages]
+ Planet.debian.org [planet]
usercategory www-team-dir
* WWW-Team directories [tag=]
+ Bugs [bugs]
+ CD [cd]
+ Consultants [consultants]
+ Development [devel]
+ Distribution [distrib]
+ Documentation [doc]
+ Events [events]
+ International [international]
+ Intro [intro]
+ MailingLists [mailinglists]
+ Mirror [mirror]
+ Miscellaneous [misc]
+ News [news]
+ Partners [partners]
+ Ports [ports]
+ Releases [releases]
+ Security [security]
+ Users [users]
+ Vote [vote]
+ Packages.debian.org [packages]
+ Planet.debian.org [planet]
+ Uncategorized []
usercategory normal
* status
* www-team-type
* severity
usercategory dir
* status
* www-team-dir
* severity
usercategory www.debian.org-sort
* status
* www-team-type
* severity
* classification
usercategory old
* status
* severity
* classification
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=Nn7w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: