Hi, While doing some bug triaging yesterday I noticed that we don't have a common process to assess the priority of a bug. That is, JIRA lists some criteria, and I think there's a common understanding what P0, P1 means ... but when it comes to the difference between P2, P3, P4, and P5 it gets IMO really blurry.
So here is my little attempt to formalize the assessment bit, and come up with a somewhat reproducible bug priority based on severity, visibility, whether it's a regression, and whether there's a workaround: http://qt-project.org/wiki/JIRA-Priorities Do you think that's helpful, and does this match the results your intuition? If we can reach some consensus it might be worthwhile to integrate into http://qt-project.org/wiki/Triaging_Bugs . Regards Kai PS: Obviously, the result of any such scheme should be considered not more than a hint. There are lots of additional factors that might play a role. It also applies mostly to bugs in the Qt source code itself, e.g. documentation bugs, packaging bugs, ... might have different factors to check for. -------- Kai Köhne, Senior Software Engineer | The Qt Company Digia Germany GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Tuula Haataja Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B Email: kai.koe...@theqtcompany.com | Mobile: + 49 151 55155601 | Phone: +49 30 63 92 3255 www.qt.io |Qt Blog: http://blog.qt.digia.com/ | Twitter: @QtbyDigia, @Qtproject | Facebook: www.facebook.com/qt _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
