Re: naming severities more correctly? [was Re: What if "blocker" meant "blocker"?]



I also advocating changing the "Gnome target:" field as it appears on
the bug forms (show_bug, the search pages, etc) to something that makes
its meaning more obvious like "Blocks Gnome version:".  This would go a
long way to preventing its inappropriate use (I just went through
Bugzilla and fixed a bunch of bugs which had this inappropriately set).

Elijah pointed out that the only reason this might be a problem is
because of the bug search interface which allows you to specify, for
example "gnome-target:2.14.x" and is expected to maintain some sort of
backward compatibility.

Cheers

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 18:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 1/7/06, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
> > On 1/6/06, Ryan Lortie <desrt desrt ca> wrote:
> > > Hello Release Team.
> > >
> > > For next release cycle, I have a simple suggestion to improve the
> > > release process:
> > >
> > > Don't release software with major bugs in it.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up.  I agree that blocker bugs (meaning the
> > "gnome-target" field, not severity=blocker bugs)
> 
> I'll probably add my two cents to the rest of this thread later (and
> really bugmaster and/or bugsquad should be cc'd), but we might want to
> consider renaming the 'blocker' severity to 'development blocker' or
> something like that, to make it more clear what the field actually
> represents.
> 
> Luis
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]