On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Aaron Bentley <aa...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> This is a classic priority inversion, and the normal scheduling fix is >>> to grant the higher priority to the task holding the resource needed >>> by the higher priority. >> >> I guess I'm reluctant to do priority inheritance because fixing bug B >> may not be necessary or sufficient to unstick bug A. > > Thats fair enough; we need to make a judgement call each time this occurs. > > Here are my personal rules of thumb (which as I write this appear to > just be capturing something more fuzzy at the back of my head :P): > If I *am* going to work on B so that A is easier to work on, I *have* > granted it higher priority, so I should record that in the bug > tracker. > > If I *might* work on B for the same reason, I have not *yet* granted > it higher priority, so I would merely note in the bug that it is an > option for making A more tractable, but not raise the priority.
Aaron has starting using 'priority-inheritance' as a tag to indicate when a bug is only (high|critical) because its a dependency of another bug. I think this is great and have added that tag to our docs on the wiki + the official tags list for auto-complete. I've also update the bugtriage wiki page to explain that we use dependency relations as a reason for a bug to be critical. Cheers, Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
