On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 09:51:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The difficulty involved in fixing a bug does indeed impact the severity > > of a bug, though of course it's not the sole criterion. > > And that one would be the "red herring" fallacy. The definitions of "minor" > and "wishlist" don't have anything to do with determining which of "normal", > "serious" or "grave" a bug should be. Again, wrong. Our bug severity definitions use vague language and you have to read the whole list to get a "feel" for what severity a given bug should be. The description of each severity doesn't exist in a vacuum unto itself. You're expected to read the descriptions of all of them and pick the one that's the best match. In fact, you're demonstrably wrong using the very language in the documentation of our BTS: "The bug system records a severity level with each bug report. This is set to normal by default, but can be overridden..." Now how one is supposed to know to override a bug of "normal" severity without reading the list of bug severities and their descriptions is quite beyond me. Bugs start in an unsorted pile called "normal", and then a selection process is applied to move them into other piles called "critical", "important", "wishlist", etc. This selection process is driven by the definitions of the bug severities. If you want some algorithmic description of bug severity determination wherein one need not know the names or definitions of bug severities to categorize a bug, feel free to write one up, but such a thing does not exist in the BTS documentation we have at present. Perhaps you should stop leveling charges of fallacious reasoning until you've demonstrated a grasp of what it is. -- G. Branden Robinson | Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to branden@debian.org | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying
Attachment:
pgpsX0QgrHhZW.pgp
Description: PGP signature