Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 166310
DOCS-NEEDED Boolean checkbox
Last modified: 2013-06-23 22:57:42 EDT
We need a checkbox to allow a bug owner/properly allowed person to mark a bug
report as needing attention from documentation.
If this is for RHEL and layered products, checking this box should add
email@example.com to the Cc: field. We get that message, route it to
whichever writer covers that area, and that person adds themselves to the Cc:
and removes docs-dept-list.
If a bug has been marked as DOCS-ATTENTION/DOCS-NEEDED/DOCS-FOO (need a good
name), then it must have a DOCS ACK from the writer who covers the bug.
We will work with the proper people in Engineering to get this implemented in
Additionally, we can use this feature on the Fedora documentation side. In this
case, we can use the firstname.lastname@example.org alias to accept incoming
DOCS-NEEDED tags. Similarly, we will route this to the proper writer to cover.
I'll work to make the processes as close as possible, that way developers learn
good habits in one side that work in Fedora and RHEL.
We could accomplish this by requesting developers to put docs-dept-list in the
Cc: manually. However, it seems compliance for that would be less than if there
were an easy-to-use checkbox. And they have to remember if it's a note for
Fedora or RHEL, and then they just say, "Aww, forget it."
This is the first pass at this idea. We are open to further suggestions. We
considered having some additional automagic that made a separate documentation
request, but that could explode into many, many unintended requests. For a
similar reason, it is essential that only a very *tight* group of people have
the ability to use this Boolean:
* only users @redhat.com account can mark a RHEL product bug with this new Boolean
* anyone in the fedorabugs group or with an @redhat.com account can mark a
Fedora product bug with this new Boolean
Comments to this thread via this bug report should show up on our mailing list.
List members, please keep replies within this bug report, where feasible.
Bringing Jeff Needle into conversation since he is the authority on BZ statuses.
(In reply to comment #0)
> We need a checkbox to allow a bug owner/properly allowed person to mark a bug
> report as needing attention from documentation.
> If this is for RHEL and layered products, checking this box should add
> email@example.com to the Cc: field. We get that message, route it to
> whichever writer covers that area, and that person adds themselves to the Cc:
> and removes docs-dept-list.
Why not just add firstname.lastname@example.org to the Cc: manually. Does BZ need
another checkbox for this? This sounds like something for the eng process
> If a bug has been marked as DOCS-ATTENTION/DOCS-NEEDED/DOCS-FOO (need a good
> name), then it must have a DOCS ACK from the writer who covers the bug.
So are you asking for a DOCS-ATTENTION/NEEDED/FOO status to be added to Bugzilla
for bug reports? I think adding a docs-<something> flag would be sufficient and
is also more flexible in that it can be tuned to only display for certain
> We could accomplish this by requesting developers to put docs-dept-list in the
> Cc: manually. However, it seems compliance for that would be less than if there
> were an easy-to-use checkbox. And they have to remember if it's a note for
> Fedora or RHEL, and then they just say, "Aww, forget it."
Ah, I mentioned this earlier but now I see that you believe that developers will
not take the time. If another checkbox will help things to be easier for
everyone maybe we can compromise. I would like to keep it as generic as possible
to allow it to be used globally and not have to be specific to a product.
> This is the first pass at this idea. We are open to further suggestions. We
> considered having some additional automagic that made a separate documentation
> request, but that could explode into many, many unintended requests. For a
> similar reason, it is essential that only a very *tight* group of people have
> the ability to use this Boolean:
> * only users @redhat.com account can mark a RHEL product bug with this new Boolean
> * anyone in the fedorabugs group or with an @redhat.com account can mark a
> Fedora product bug with this new Boolean
Well it is technically possible to do this it will require very specific hacks
to make it product specific. *@redhat.com is already in the 'editbugs' group
automatically and people in the 'fedorabugs' group also have 'editbugs' privs so
they both would be able to see the checkbox. So as mentioned maybe we can limit
to people who are can 'editbugs' and make it more generic. Just to figure out
which cc address to add.
Jeff - yes, this is a follow-up to the question I asked in the BZ training last
I didn't want to add a new state flag, because that would cause Docs to be a
bottleneck in the workflow. In some cases, this would be important, but not in
most cases. Unless we _want_ make complete docs a prerequisite step for all
errata bound bug reports. Doesn't seem necessary to me, at this point.
The checkbox was, yeah, to tackle lazy developers. It would be tons easier if
they just put the appropriate address in the Cc: field, but that feels like a
larger extra step than checking one "Docs Note", or even having two different
checkboxes, one for Fedora and one for RHEL. Or a dropdown menu, "Docs
Noteworthy," that has those two choices and fills the Cc:.
I agree with the generic usage idea. When you say "add a docs-something flag",
is this a status flag? Or just a searchable field? Again, I'm concerned about
having Docs be put in the middle where we don't need to be. We just need a
method for developers to tag something as being docs-worthy, and a way for us to
know about and not lose those tagged reports.
If it is more generic, how does the system know which address to Cc:? Is it a
hack to make it send to email@example.com for Fedora products and to
firstname.lastname@example.org for RHEL products?
Do I understand that 'fedorabugs' people have 'editbugs' privs for more than
Fedora specific products?
Our concern and reason for making it different across products was mainly to
prevent just any old bug reporter from deciding, "Yeah, Red Hat should document
this," and we get floods of bogus docs-needed requests. We want this to be
something that only the properly blessed can evoke. I don't care if these are
community developers, as long as they know what they are doing. If they make a
mistake, we have leverage to lean on them to do differently next time.
These are just our ideas for resolving this situation, we're open to further
suggestions on process and solutions.
Thanks for helping with this, we think this is going to greatly improve the kind
of bits we get from developers for documenting. And make life easier for the
Red Hat Bugzilla is now using version 3.2 of the Bugzilla codebase and therefore this bug will need to be re-verified against the new release. With the updated code this bug may no longer be relevant or may have been fixed in the new code.
Updating bug version to 3.2.
I think various checkboxes/flags and human process has been added that resolve or supercede this discussion. I certainly cannot speak for Content Services in this regard, but they will have taken care of their own needs separately.
We do have the Fedora release notes flag. It would be nice to have a generic "needs Fedora documentation" flag that only component owners could switch, but to be honest ... there has not been a flood of usage for the release notes flag over the years, so I doubt YAFlag will make much of a difference.
Thus, we can close this instead of verifying it against the new BZ version, unless someone else sees merit in keeping it open.
Thanks for looking at this. Those interested may reopen this bug if they feel it has been closed prematurely.