On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:33:01AM +0300, Quim Gil wrote: > All people involved in the discussion has agreed on the usefulness of > the feature and we decided to ask here just to check with the developers. >
Hi, I'd actually be quite against the feature, reasoning below. Bugs have a severity which should be decided two base metrics, exploitability and impact. Add to this temporal metrics (level of workaround available, number of times observed) and throw in a bit of modifying metrics (security issues, failure to boot etc) and you have your severity. Now, this isn't done in a formalised way for each bug, and I would be surprised to find it used at all in a general software distribution. However, internally this should always be going through the head of the person setting the severity. And it is this severity that should help inform the priority. This means that the correct bugs, the ones with the highest impact, or easy to find/exploit etc will get fixed first. The one with "crashing panel leads to configuration corrution needing manual intervention" is much more important than "the cute blue cartoon character's hat is wonky" even if the latter is more popular. Bugs shoudn't be subject to a popularity contest. They're subject to a technical evaluation. Neil -- Neil McGovern Software Development Team Leader - Amino Communications _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
