Re: bugzilla work items

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc cu-portland edu> writes:

> On 03 Dec 2000 13:23:26 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org> writes:
> > 
> > > Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> [snip]
> > > >  * Remove priorities entirely. 
> > > > 
> > > >  [ Is this what we want to do? Martin had this in his plan and no one
> > > >    objected. The typical usage of them seems to be for tracking bugs
> > > >    that need to be fixed for a particular release, but we have that
> > > >    somewhat with the classification of severity into those that block
> > > >    releases and those that don't, but its possible that some
> > > >    people would want to make minor or trivial bugs release-critical.
> > > >    (you mispelled my name in the README file!) ]
> > > 
> > > Hmm, that'd be a good reason to keep priorities (but rename them to something
> > > better than P1...P5).
> > 
> > I think I would find this useful for GTK+. Right now, I'd like
> > to go through all the GTK+ bugs and flag all the ones that I
> > want to deal with for 1.2.9. It would feel wrong to me to go
> > through and mark all these bugs as 'Major' or 'Critical' in
> > Severity, because mostly they are minor bugs, and changing
> > them to 'Major' would if nothing else distort the statistics. 
> > 
> > Red Hat has simply High, Normal, Low. I'd suggest extending this
> > just a bit to Urgent, High, Normal, Low, with the 
> > recommended interpratations:
> > 
> >  Normal
> [snip] 
> 
> 
> Why is it that nobody can seem to define "Normal" with regards to bugs?
> :)

Because it is usually defined by which things don't go there...

  Normal

   Bugs which aren't low priority, but might not be fixed for
   the next release.

Doesn't add much.

> > Setting priorities probably should be reserved for the 'GNOME Hackers'
> > group and certainly should not be an option when submitting a
> > bug. 
> 
> How will "GNOME Hackers" be defined?  Is this just the people who write
> lots of GNOME code?  Or people with CVS commit access?  Or people on
> gnome-hackers?  Or even just people who are on gnome-private?

Its a group defined within bugzilla. 

I would say it roughly corresponds to people with CVS access, plus
anybody else for whom it makes sense. Like many othe things, we
need some formal policy and mechanism for determining who goes
in.

> P.S. I don't know if this will go through to gnome-hackers, as I've been
> unable to convince anybody other than jrb and muet that I should be
> subscribed.

If you aren't subscribed, it will be held for moderation. Again, we
need a mechanism for deciding who is included. I've taken a leap and
added you...

(I will recommend that the way we do gnome-hackers/private membership
is any foundation member that asks.)

Regards,
                                        Owen  

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers