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

[Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com>]

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 18:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:

> 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.

That's a nice idea.  In GTK+ we have a convention for the "Milestone"
field.  Assumming that the current stable release is 2.8.x, we have
milestones like these:

"2.10 API freeze" - if this goes in, it must go in before API freeze.
This of course applies to new APIs.

"2.10 freeze" - new non-API feature, or major non-API bug that must be
fixed before the next release.

So, would we have "development blocker" for must-have APIs or "this
proposed API is fucked and must be fixed", and "user blocker" for major
user-visible bugs or something like that?

... Could someone build a list of the current blockers?  We can put out
a call for volunteers to test those bugs for reproducibility.

  Federico