On Jan 12, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Gary Poster <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Robert Collins wrote: >> ... >>> - critical means 'a bug to take next' not 'a bug to interrupt >>> current work' : we use incidents if we need to interrupt work (and >>> Francis is updating that separate policy) >> >> I'm sorry to raise this after the fact, but sometimes seeing a policy >> implemented shows concerns that had not been seen before. >> >> On the team lead call we discussed the fact that some bugs are more critical >> than others. In particular, IMO, while we have so many legacy OOPSes, the >> OOPS bugs, all critical, are going to obscure bugs that truly are >> problematic or potentially dangerous. > > I think the vast majority of these oops bugs are truely problematic or > dangerous: there are potential attacks on the zope appserver, for > instance. > > The ZeroOopsPolicy in its rationale says we want to get to a steady > state where 'an oops means we need to do something to fix a problem a > user is experiencing' - thats very much not the case today... but > imagine if it was: > - we'd have no critical bugs most of the time > - any oops, browser regression or functional regression would be critical > - and all those things really would be serious. > > So to me, what we have now really does match up with 'gee we need to > do these things now'. Its a big list because we let them starve vs > feature work - I think of it as a balloon payment on technical debt.
I understand and appreciate your/Jono's/Francis' perspective, but personally am not swayed from my original position. I'm happy to go along with the consensus or however the decision is made, but I felt it was worth expressing my concerns. Gary _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
