On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:22:32AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
is it correct that all fixes, regardless of its annoyance, get a `low
priority' in case it won't become part of the next `milestone'
release?
That's not quite correct. There's no functional difference
between Postponed, Low, and
Graham Percival wrote:
Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug
hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the
issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would
you seriously just start working on whichever item *I* said
was most important / most annoying
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug
hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the
issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would
you seriously just start
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
Personally, I don't think `priority'* or `annoying' captures it. I
would label them `embarrassing', because they're holding LilyPond
back from looking really professional.
But if
If you'd entered them yourself as both Medium, or both
Low, I wouldn't have said anything.
OK.
- Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
assigning their pet issue a higher priority flag that nobody
On 12/10/09 3:29 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
But if nobody is working on fixing them, who cares what the label
is?!?!
The low vs. medium priority has historically been a
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Wouldn't it be
helpful if I could check the priority flag of the bugs to find
something I should work on more urgently than other things? For
example, the Savannah bugzilla allows users to `rate' bugs. The
higher the score, the more people would like to have this bug
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:22:17PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
- Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
assigning their pet issue a higher priority flag that nobody
pays attention to.
If you would like to change the priority between postponed, low, and
medium issues -- either raising the priority of a postponed or low
one, or lowering the priority of a low or medium one -- go ahead.
I'll eventually do that for my own bugs. However, it's basically the
job of the bugmeister
1. Severity of the Bug.
2. Probability of occurrence of the bug.
3. Difficulty of working around.
Very nice!
Of course, I'm not proposing that anybody stop fixing bugs in order
to perform this calculation. I just wanted to get the thought in
this thread in case we ever want to seriously
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:44:59PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Of course, I'm not proposing that anybody stop fixing bugs in order
to perform this calculation. I just wanted to get the thought in
this thread in case we ever want to seriously approach this in the
future
I suggest
Graham,
is it correct that all fixes, regardless of its annoyance, get a `low
priority' in case it won't become part of the next `milestone'
release?
I consider this categorization a bit coarse, and I would like to see
at least one more level to mark bugs as `annoying' or something like
that.
12 matches
Mail list logo
