Re: Bug system severities
On Sep 04, Guy Maor wrote
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > - "out of date": there is a newer upstream version available.
> > This is orthogonal to the currently proposed values.
> No, the severity field should describe the severity, not the type of
> bug. An out of date bug is just a normal bug. Otherwise we would add
> severities dependency-error, packaging-error, out-of-date-standards,
I agree with you that the severity and type should probably be kept
seperate. I do think that we need a type field. "outdated", "typo" (in a
script), "spello" - spelling or grammatical error in documentation.
Ian Jackson mentioned a "difficult" severity in a seperate post -
whatever happens to "outdated" (I prefer that name as it is one word!)
should also happen to "difficult".
IMHO I don't like the way that Ian just added the "Severity" field - I
think that it should have been discussed on the list beforehand. It is
always much harder to change things after they have been used than before
they are implemented. If it was just to test the mechanism, then
obviously I the above statement is void.
.signature in post
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .