On Thursday 13 January 2011 01:10:48 Martin Pool wrote: > 1- Real emergencies are 'off the scale' and almost don't need to be in > the bug tracker, or at least don't need to be marked specially severe > in the bug tracker. > > I don't really buy this. Sometimes time does pass with critical > issues still open; you can't assume people will just know and not > forget or have to leave work. I think it's very good there be an > obvious flashing light in the bug tracker when something is critical, > and that that light not be on every day of the year. (I realize there > are also irc topics etc.) If something is severely broken just being > able to find it by clicking 'critical' is highly useful. I think it's > good people jump when a bug is marked critical, and not see that as > just the normal state.
I agree with this. Rob also said: > Launchpad isn't where operational issues are tracked. Such issues > are tracked in request tracker, and reserving space in Launchpad for > operational issues doesn't make any sense to me at all. Not all critical issues are operational problems though. I want to be able to track code fixes to any kind of issue in the bug tracker. We also *require* a bug in regard to our current QA procedures. If you want to track it in the Request Tracker as well, then I guess that's OK but I consider RTs for an entirely different class of problem - that is problems that are not in LP's code and require admin intervention. > 2- If oopses/regressions/timeouts are only marked High not Critical, > they won't be taken seriously by developers. > > I don't know. Bit depressing if that's true. I think that's not true. Isn't it about time we really started using the various levels of importance we have in our bug tracker? Here's my suggestion: Low - acknowledged it's a bug, but not important to fix Medium - we want to fix this but it's behind more important stuff High - oopses, timeouts, important stuff to do next Critical - ZOMG drop everything and fix now, incident Oh and I generally use "wishlist" as a status meaning I don't want to fix this bug at all but I also don't want to piss off the bug reporter by flagging it as such. So the only change we'd need to make from how it is now is that a lot of our bugs are not really high priority. I think this accurately reflects reality. > > 3- Our users won't believe we're serious about timeouts unless we mark > them Critical. > > They'll know we're serious if they get fixed. Indeed. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
