avox wrote: > > Marc Sabatella wrote: > >> I've reported a couple of bugs lately, and am wondering if there are >> standards regarding the "severity" field. I know everyone always thinks >> the >> bugs that affect *them* are more serious than others might think, and I >> don't take it *personally* that one of my reports was downgraded in >> severity. But this does suggest that if there are standards for >> determining >> severity, it would be great if they were public and perhaps open for >> critique. And if there are not, I think there should be. >> >> > > No, we don't have a fixed standard for that, just some rules-of-thumb. > > "feature" is reserved for feature requests (in contrast to bug reports) > "crash" is self-expalnatory > "block" is an issue that must be fixed before the next release. We use > meta-issues > of that category to collect all issues we want to have fixed in the next > release. > > The remaining categories are: > "trivial" > "text" > "tweak" > "minor" > "major" > > The default is "minor". > > IIRC "text" is used for spelling erros and the like. > IMHO one of "tweak" or "trivial" is superflous. > > I guess we choose the severity mainly based on how visible a bug is, that > means how many users might run into it. On that scale your bug would > classify as "minor" since registration marks aren't used by all users. > > OTOH we treat any bug that causes a job to fail at the print service bureau > as "major", "crash" or "block". > Following your explanation, I agree that your bug should be treated as this. > Maybe we should introduce a new category for this kind of bugs, eg. > "jobfailure" or something like that. > I have a hard time with this. I submitted a bug for the fact that text flowing around Bounding Boxes doesn't work at all, so it was a severe bug from that perspective, even though it doesn't otherwise impair Scribus.
Greg
