[asterisk-dev] Bugs/patches 16033 and 16590 ignored forever

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 02:49:37PM -0500, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson wrote:
> 
> > Now, an interesting observation. When I report a bug, it gets fixed by a 
> > developer, I confirm the fix works, and it gets into the 1.6 branches. 
> > Now, If I both report and fix the same bug, it is doomed to  sit there 
> > forever. That raises another question -- that is a strong disincentive 
> > for me to send in a patch *even if I have one*. Instead, I should 
> > consider my fix "a temporary hack" and then throw it away when an 
> > "official" fix is implemented by somebody else.
> 
> That may have been the case with your previous issues, but there is only
> a correlation, not causation. Attaching patches to issues does *not* in
> any way lower their priority for being addressed, in fact it raises the
> priority.
> 
> As Leif said, the Asterisk development team addresses as many issues as
> they can in every four week sprint (lately that has been a relatively
> large number of issues, 80 or more if I remember correctly). Because
> there are not infinite resources to apply to working on issues, when
> each sprint starts, the entire pool of available issues is sorted by a
> difficulty, priority and benefit weighting system, and then the issues
> at the top of the list get allocated to people until their available
> time is completely allocated. Four weeks later, the process starts over.
> 
> Given the resource limitations, it is not at all possible to address
> every issue that is open in any reasonable period of time, so we have
> had no choice but to develop a process that attempts to address the most
> important, highest impact issues. That, by definition, means some issues
> will never get addressed unless additional resources (either at Digium
> or in the community) are brought to bear, but that's how it works in all
> open source projects. When resources are limited, they have to be
> applied to the issues that have the biggest impact on the user community.

Here's a stupid suggestion: give higher priority for reviewing patches
by people who provide useful reviews of their own. That is: make it
useful to provide a (good) review of other bugs.

(and yes, I'm aware of
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Defect-Black-Market.aspx )

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755              jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir