Re: Move to a cadence release model?

[Stelian Iancu <si@siancu.net>]

On 12/11/15 17:22, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Stelian Iancu <stelian@iancu.ch>
>> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:27:24 +0100
>>
>> Is the bug handling process documented somewhere?
>
> Not sure what you mean by that.  When someone decides they want to
> work on a bug, they just do it: reproduce it on their system, use the
> debugger, ask the OP questions if needed, discuss their findings on
> the mailing list with other developers, etc.  Once the bug is
> identified and fixed, the bug report is closed by sending an email to
> special address @debbugs.gnu.org; if it is decided not to fix the bug,
> the bug is tagged accordingly by sending a similar message.  The last
> part is the only thing I could call "bug handling process", and this
> _is_ documented in admin/notes/bugtracker.  All the rest is just
> investigation and debugging.
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
>

It does, to a certain degree. I'm only used to, let's say, more formal 
bug handling, where there is a certain process that is followed by both 
the reporter of the bug as well as the developer that is working on the 
bug. For example, in the places I've worked, there were different states 
that the bug was on, like "new", "confirmed", "reproducible", etc. Is 
there such a thing for Emacs bugs? If yes, how does one go about 
changing it? And where?

But I kind of get the workflow from your answer.

I've had a look at the web interface for the bug system and it's not 
very user friendly. Let's say I'd like to have a look at the existing 
bugs, trying to at least reproduce them and comment in the bug reports. 
How would I practically do that?

I'm following the bugs mailing list on gmane for the past week or so, btw.