Hi *,
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:04:39PM +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Stephen Frank schrieb:
> >>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 don't think I understand this right. Are you saying that basically all
> >(or most) of the issues would have a default priority (eg. P3) to begin
> >with, then QA would modify the priority to match the actual need,
Yes. Those who are not already classified by the categories available
from the simple interface (i.e. it would default to P2 if the user
reports a "crash")
> >or are
> >you saying that the issues coming out of the simple interface would
> >already have a higher priority (eg. P2) by default?
> From what I understand, Christian is saying the first.
Andre is right.
> >If the first is true, would we want to make sure the issue had seen QA
> >before developers addressed it? (Do developers only look at issues with
> >the oooqa keyword?)
Hello?
> This is, waht the current process is about.
Exactly. Devs will usually not look at issues with status "unconfirmed",
only at those with status new (as for any rule, there are exceptions).
> Users will file issues as
> unconfirmed. QA will take care of those issue, verify them, reassign,
> collect data ... and set them to new.
> Developers schould only look at issues in status new.
>
> So .. really don't bug the user with something abstract like "prioity".
> In most cases, the reoprting user will set the priority to high.
Thanks for clarifying my point.
> >>>[...]
> >>>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.
> >
> >*-and---
>
> And I have to disagree here.
You disagree with what?
> Seeting priority has not much to do with
> developer ressources. It is a measurment, how "bad" a bug is. So .. even
> if we had no developers at all, a bug that causes an unavoidable crash
> on every start of OOo would have top priority.
Yes. So how is this disagreeing?
> >>>I go for P2 issues first (usually to check to see if I
> >>>need to downgrade them), then I move on to P3 issues. As I said before,
> >>>it
> >>>is easier (for me at least) to downgrade an issue to P3 than upgrade a P3
> >>>issue to P2.
> >>>
> >>Why is that? Why is it easier to downgrade than to upgrade?
> >
> >You say above the QA should not care about priority, and to a certain
> >extent I think this is true.
Not care = not act on behalf on...
QA should correct or set the priority, but should not handle the issues
based on priority. For QAing an issue (and that involves setting the
appropriate priority if necessary), the priority of an issue should not
determine the rank (will look at it sooner than other issues) of an issue.
> [...]
ciao
Christian
--
NP: Slipknot - People = Shit
Join #qa.OpenOffice.org on irc.freenode.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
