Hi Caio,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:07:42PM -0300, Caio Tiago Oliveira wrote:
> Christian Lohmaier, 14-04-2006 19:04:
> >On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:25:48AM -0400, Stephen Frank wrote:
> >>Thanks for your thoughts. I have some further comments...
> >
> >Since these issues need through QA first, I'd prefer QA to set a
> >higher-than-default priority.
> >You far less need to increase prio than to decrease it.
>
> I disagree...
> we can use some of the existent keywords to claim the QA attention. It
> isn't good to have more P2 then the usual, because it makes harder to
> find the most annoyng bugs (they would end up obfuscated by a lot of
> duplicates, invalids and non important bugs).
You disagree? But you're just reiterated my point?
> >>> I'd not offer the priority in the bug-assistant directly.
> > [...]
> >I'd try to remove as many fields as possible, ask only those questions
> >that are really necessary. I'd rather not have these questions (for the
> >reason above: changing the prio from P3 to a higher one is not necessary
> >most of the time.
>
> I think the user should, at least, say if ***he** thinks* the bug is
> much important. A big hang or data loss is very important, so these
> should be verified first (just after crashes).
But he shall not be bothered with abstraction and things like priority
directly.
IMHO the first question (classification of bug) is enough.
> >>[...]
> >>For me as a QA volunteer, priority is the first thing I look at when
> >>trying
> >>to verify an issue.
> >
> >In my opintion, QA should not care about priority. Devels should. But
> >not QA.
>
> The point is that the developers should waste their time programming, so
> it's better his P2 bugs be really P2 bugs, instead of P3 or P4.
Exactly.
> [...]
ciao
Christian
--
NP: Metallica - Nothing Else Matters
Join #qa.OpenOffice.org on irc.freenode.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
