<snipped individuals from the CC list, since they're most likely on one list or the other> On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 00:27, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On 25 Apr 2003, John Fleck wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 01:52, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > I've currently installed a procmail filter that puts any > > > bug reports with Priority >= High in a special folder. I've also given the > > > procmail rule to dave, so i guess he has it installed to. This means > > > people just need to raise priority to High to get us to notice things > > > faster. This can of course be abused, but I expect that won't be to common > > > to be a bother. > > > > > > As long as all nautilus bug triagers know this I think it will work as > > > well as a separate list. > > > > > > > It would be most useful (to me, at least) if you could give us some > > guidelines about what you see as type of Priority->High bugs you'd like > > to have appearing in that mailbox. > > Well, this is hard of course, since it depends very much on the details. > There are some things I always want to see: > * bugs with patches that need reviewing The bugsquad policy is to mark any bugs with patches as "high", so these should still show up. > * build failures (except the "I messed up my system" style) OK, this isn't part of bugsquad policy, probably mostly because these are slightly harder to identify, in a lot of cases. Most of the ones along this vein posted by the various BSD ports maintainers are easy enough to pick out. > * easily repeatable crashers (that not only the reporter can reproduce) These are covered by bugsquad "policy" too. > * strange, highly dup:ed crashers, with at least one good backtrace Some of these will probably get caught by normal bugsquad triage. Others might take a bit more looking by somebody who is familiar with backtraces. > Then I'm always interested in good quality bugreports that are not of the > wishlist variety. If you think a bug is "severe" then I'm probably > interested, although this is an area where you'll have to use your > own judgement. This one will be more interesting, I think. It won't be immediately obvious that some of these should necessarily be "high" priority. I'd be inclined not to bump these right away, but look at how the other things mentioned "filter" the list of bugs. If it all works out well, and Alex and Dave are just flying through the bug reports that clearly need their attention, then this may warrant some extra attention. Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part