The word "triage" in programming has been around for a while, but seem to have gained popularity lately. What it is, is basically a new word for "bugprioritizing", being easier to say and spell. But if we look at what the word comes from, we see that behind this lies a concept that is often forgotten in the usage.
"Triage" comes from french and means sorting, so nothing new there. Howerver, it comes to the programming world from the world of emergency health care, where it is used to allocate health care resources in emergencies, when there are more people needing care than there are health care available. In computers then, it becomes a system of allocating programming time to bugs, when there are not enough programmers to fix all the bugs.
How should this be done? Well, first of all, we of course need to take a look at how serious the bug is. What categories you have depend largely on what bugtracking system you use, and it's also a matter of personal taste. Personally, I would prefer these categories:
- A blocking/critical bug is a bug that means the system or part of the
system gets unusable. It has no workarounds, and affects most users of
- A serious/medium bug is a bug that is a big problem for many users and
has no workaround, or affects everybody, but has a workaround.
- A minor bug is a bug that affects few users and has a workaround, or
has no workaround but only is a problem in very extreme edge
- A trivial bug is not an actual problem for anybody. Could be
spelling errors or ugly design.
Bugs also usually have a priority field. Prioritizing or triaging a bug is usually just setting this field. But triage is not prioritizing, it's resource allocation. And although in medicine, the resources are helath care workers, and the criticality is time, in programming, the resurce is programming time, and the ciriticality is rather the knowledge to fix the really difficult bugs.
That's OK as long as you work in a company, because there you can take the bugs allocated to you, in the order your boss prioritized them. If you get problems, you ask your co-workers. But in the open source world there is bigger differences. Also in the open source world, people assign bugs to themselves, and if you think a bug is over your head, you will simply never try to fix it.
Therefore, the bugs importance should not be the only data you tag the bug with, but also how hard the bug is to fix. Most bugtrackers only have severity and priority. Some, like JIRA, has a field where you can estimate it. Although that's more of a XP project management features than a help in triage, it can be used as such. If you have an hour over to bugfix, there is no point in trying to understand a bug who is estimated to take hours to fix.
But what would be even more helpful in an open source situation would be a difficulty field. The experienced bugfixers can look through the bugs, note severity and difficuly, and then not fix the easy bugs. It's tempting to fix the easy ones because quick fixes are satisfying and you feel productive. But if the wanna-be contributor can fix bugs marked as "easy" and understand and fix them, then we have not only gotten a new contributor, we have saved time for the experts.
(Post originally written by Lennart Regebro on the old Nuxeo blogs.)