[DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com>]

Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
enough to implement them.

-Eric

Re: [DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>]

Ditto

On 4/26/13 8:56 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
>> new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
>> enough to implement them.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
> I am in favor of not automatically assigning
>

Re: [DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
> new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
> enough to implement them.
>
> -Eric
>

I am in favor of not automatically assigning

Re: [DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[John Vines <vi...@apache.org>]

We're pretty on top of things, but I think we should develop some sort of
notation, either comment or tag, to indicate it has been reviewed by a
committer. This way we can be sure a ticket by random_stranger gets some
attention, even if it's just an ack to it being a legit issue.

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
On Apr 25, 2013 9:46 PM, "Billie Rinaldi" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd be OK with trying something new. If we do, maybe we should make a habit
> of "unassigned ticket browsing Mondays" or some such.
>
> Billie
> On Apr 25, 2013 9:37 PM, "Eric Newton" <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
> > new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
> > enough to implement them.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>]

I'd be OK with trying something new. If we do, maybe we should make a habit
of "unassigned ticket browsing Mondays" or some such.

Billie
On Apr 25, 2013 9:37 PM, "Eric Newton" <er...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
> new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
> enough to implement them.
>
> -Eric
>

Re: [DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

After the automatic assignee looks at them, they can always mark them
as unassigned. Though, this seems to work better when there is a more
clearly defined hierarchy of authority for different components.

The point of automatic assignment seems to me to ensure they don't go
overlooked. I agree with John that this could be satisfied with some
sort of notation to distinguish that a ticket has been reviewed. Some
systems have workflows that allow tickets to go from a "New" state to
an "Accepted" one. Can we do that with JIRA?

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:26 PM, David Medinets
<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to leave tickets unassigned until someone is actually working on the
> ticket.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
>> new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
>> enough to implement them.
>>
>> -Eric
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] remove automatic ticket assignment

[David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>]

+1 to leave tickets unassigned until someone is actually working on the
ticket.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Automatic ticket assignment makes too many assumptions.  We should leave
> new tickets unassigned to indicate that they are free for anyone bold
> enough to implement them.
>
> -Eric
>