Re: Bug system severities
On Sep 4, Adrian Bridgett <adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com> wrote:
> 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.
It's been discussed many times. The main point is to provide some way to
distinguish between bugs that keep things from working and bugs that we
can live with if we have to. I think Ian's method does that. If we find
that it could be better, then we can fix it. It doesn't really affect
anything else, so if we have/want to change it, no big deal.
<OPINION>
One of the weaknesses of a democratic group effort like Debian is that
*everything* gets discussed to death, no (obvious) consensus is reached,
nobody does anything, and it all starts over two months later. We went
round and round on a dselect redesign until finally the Diety group got
together, went away in pseudo-private, and just did it, and came back
with a (good!) design. (Way to go, folks!)
Some things need to be discussed, because of the far reaching impact and
the expense (mostly time, possibly money) of doing it over. Changing the
package format would be an example of that. But for a lot of things,
just doing it and getting *something* available to play with is more
useful than a lot of discussion/design. I think bug severities fall into
this category. (Way to go, Ian!)
</OPINION>
Steve Greenland
--
The Mole - I think, therefore I scream
The first sign of maturity is the discovery that
the volume knob also turns to the left.
[Anonymous]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: