bug triaging (was: Re: svn commit: r331728 - in stable/11/etc: . rc.d)

[Mark Linimon]

This is addressed to developers in general, not just rgrimes, but he
made the comments, so ...

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:33:44AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> It seems that the Phabricator review system is somewhat dysfunctional
> in that actual review is only happening in some cases.  Some people
> have even stated they flat out hate it.

I will have to state as someone who has spent a great deal of time on
classifying/triaging bug reports in this project, that the attitude
that some developers have that "I am not going to use tool xyz" is both
disheartening and demotivating.  I find it difficult to remember when I
triage: who it is that will or will not use which tool?

Here: the plain facts are that our clearance rate for Phabriactor reviews,
for both src and doc, are far better than for Bugzilla.  For ports, the
opposite is true.  These are just facts.

By and large IMHO phab is a plus.  (Disclaimer: I personally hate the
web interface, it makes me want to pull out my few remaining hairs.)
But I do not see it going away.  Nor, do I see bugzilla going away.
Some people like the workflow of the one, some like the other.

> The problem is that most people are not notified that a review
> of a change is even in process until the commit lands, this is
> not a functional communications system.

But many developers also ignore bug reports coming through Bugzilla,
echoed on the mailing lists.  What is your constructive suggestion
here?  Do we make subscribing to Phab reviews per src bit mandatory?
I would support it but imagine I would get a lot of pushback.

> Requring us all to go sign up like imp@ did to receive all
> submitted reviews, imho, is also a non functional situation.

So what is a constructive suggestion?

(Fair warning, folks: I won't consider "get rid of Phabricator" or
"get rid of Bugzilla" as constructive.)

mcl