Re: On Bugs, take 2
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 11:10:09PM +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)
[..]
> > > 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.
why not call it "policy" if "violation" doesn't work?
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
<knghtbrd> *snipsnip*
<rcw> oh dear, is that the sound of fortune-database editing?
<Joy> uh oh
<knghtbrd> Yes =>
Reply to: