On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:32:42AM +0100, Jan Martin Mathiassen wrote:
> 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.
Now apply that logic to "critical" and "grave". That's why we have
definitions of the severities. Indeed, one good thing about using
relatively arbitrary names is it encourages people to look at the
definitions, rather than just making it up.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpU32uDF1ED_.pgp
Description: PGP signature