Re: On Bugs, take 2
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 04:50:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Release critical bugs:
> * critical (makes unrelated stuff break; don't even install it!)
> * grave (completely broken; don't even bothering trying to run it)
> * violation (doesn't conform to policy, tsktsk)
> Normal bugs:
> * important (really needs to be fixed, where's that -qa team?)
> * normal (oopsy. someone should fix this)
> * minor (whatever)
> Otherwise:
> * wishlist (feature requests, random whines, etc)
>
> Which seems fairly decent. Would "serious" be a reasonable name instead
> of "violation" (I'd really rather keep in the same style as the other
> names...)
the problem with "serious" is that it just doesn't say *what* kind of bug
we're talking about here. "violation" is easier to understand when it comes
to knowing at-a-glance what kind of bug we're talking about.
if we implement "serious", a few bugs that should be filed as "important"
will be filed as "serious", which doesn't help.
--
-m
When you are having a bad day, and it seems like everybody is trying to piss
you off, remember that it takes 42 muscles to produce a frown, but only 4
muscles to work the trigger of a good sniper rifle.
Reply to: