On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:23:00 -0400, Terry Reedy firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 4/26/2010 2:12 AM, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
Then we went on to issue 5575 and read through it. In reading this one to determine the priority, it was clear that the ball was back in Collin's court, so I showed that I would look to see if Collin was a valid assignee (which he was) and assign it to him, with a comment about why.
To my understanding, the 'asignee' is the person who will make a decision on the issue, which usually is the maintainer of the component. Who maintains the sqlite, hashlib and ssl modules? I do not know that 'asignee' should change every time the ball moves to another's court. I thought it stayed constant except when the assignee cannot deal with the issue.
Is my understanding obsolete?
Well, in my recent experience there are two things the assignee gets used for. The first is someone claiming an issue, saying, in effect, I'm going to work this issue until it is closed. The other is to do exactly what Sean did, assign it to the next person whose decision or input is needed in order to move the issue forward. However, as you say, I think the latter is done generally when the issue *can't* move forward without that person's input (or at least not without giving them a significant opportunity to provide input). Usually this is done by the person who previously had the issue assigned to them.
My perception is that making someone nosy on an issue is preferred to assigning it to them (allowing them to assign it to themselves if they think that is appropriate), unless the issue is of higher priority or someone actively working on the issue really needs the other person's input in order to move forward. But these are my own rules of thumb, and a discussion of how best to use this field may be appropriate.
-- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com