Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues

[Bernhard Lindner]

On Fr, 2020-12-04 at 07:42 +0300, NIkolai Marchenko wrote:

> Let's be honest with your users:
> P0: almost sure to block a release. 
> P1: We will act on it if the maintainer is in the mood some day when it's 
> still fresh
> P2: We will fix it, maybe
> P3: thank you for informing us.

Funny, this is pretty much how I would phrased it as well.

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues

[Kai Köhne]

> From: Development  On Behalf Of NIkolai 
> Marchenko
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues
>
>> Currently, there are 1175 open P1 issues in the QTBUG project.  583 of those 
>> issues had that priority set more than one year ago,  
>
> I am not saying no one ever fixes those, but given the premise of this 
> thread. The "promise" of every PX description is certainly > broken enough 
> _in general_ that my rewording is more accurate than official one.

I think your interpretation is wrong. During this year we managed to close 1849 
P1 issues in QTBUG [1]. At the same time 1966 P1 issues got reported [2]. So we 
indeed have a growing top-line of P1 tasks, and arguably also an issue with 
long-standing P1's. 

But for a new P1 that gets reported today, the chance that it gets closed in a 
timely manner is still rather high. 

Also, a lot of effort in 2020 was going into 6.0. I do expect we'll put some 
more focus on the bug backlog in 2021.

Kai

[1]: Obtained by JQL query 'project = QTBUG AND PRIORITY = "P1: Critical" AND 
resolutiondate >= 2020-01-01'
[2]: Obtained by JQL query 'project = QTBUG AND PRIORITY = "P1: Critical" AND 
createdDate >= 2020-01-01'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues

[Mitch Curtis]

> -Original Message-
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> Jason McDonald
> Sent: Friday, 4 December 2020 5:25 AM
> To: Kai Köhne 
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues
> 
> 
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 02:09, Kai Köhne   > wrote:
> 
> 
>   > Was there any outcome from this discussion? Like, re-evaluating
> priority
>   > levels and what they mean in terms of release blockers?
> 
> 
> 
> I note that the number of open P1's has dropped from 1175 to 1063.  Some of
> that decline has been from genuine P1's getting fixed for Qt 6, some is due to
> maintainers doing some housekeeping, and I have closed a handful while
> sifting through the older half of the Needs More Info bugs.
> 
> 
> Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far.
> 
> 
> There was no consensus, however, so I've put this on the backburner until I
> can finish reading through the rest of the NMI bugs and the Testlib backlog,
> which will take me into the new year.
> 
> 
> When I'm done with those tasks, perhaps I can find one or two maintainers
> who wouldn't mind a little help to straighten out their module's backlog in
> exchange for educating me about their module.  (Warning: I can only commit
> to a maximum of ten hours per week for the foreseeable future.)
> 
> Personally, I don't have a problem with the definitions of the priority 
> levels.
> The only change I'd suggest is to make it explicit that the availability of an
> easy workaround should generally cause the priority of a bug to drop down
> one step.
> 
> 
> What I'm seeing in Jira suggests that collectively we just aren't very strict
> about sticking to those definitions.  I've seen some cases where P1 has been
> set to indicate that "this bug really annoys me" rather than "this bug 
> seriously
> disrupts my work".  I also see cases where the reporter set the priority
> themselves.  Back in the Nokia days, we had separate Severity and Priority
> fields so that Jira could show both the level of disruption experienced by the
> reporter and the urgency for a fix set by the maintainer.  I'm afraid that I 
> can't
> remember why we merged those fields.

There was a discussion related to this recently:

https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2020-February/038988.html

> 
> 
>   I don't think there was any sort of decision or consensus. Which
> means we keep working with the status quo, as documented in
> https://bugreports.qt.io/secure/ShowConstantsHelp.jspa?#PriorityLevels
> 
>   I suggest to simplify P3, P4 descriptions though to
> 
> P2: Important, should be fixed.
> P3: Should be fixed.
> 
>   (the mentioning that they don't block a release probably stems from
> a time where P1 meant blocking the release. This is not the case anymore, so
> what's the point in highlighting that a P2, P3 doesn't block a release?).
> 
> 
> 
> I think that would be a good change.  P1's blocking a release only made sense
> back in the days where we could only manage one release every three or
> four months.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Jason

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues

[NIkolai Marchenko]

> Currently, there are 1175 open P1 issues in the QTBUG project.  583 of
those issues had that priority set more than one year ago,

I am not saying no one ever fixes those, but given the premise of this
thread. The "promise" of every PX description is certainly broken enough
_in general_ that my rewording is more accurate than official one.


On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:11 AM Joerg Bornemann 
wrote:

> On 12/4/20 5:42 AM, NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
>
> > Let's be honest with your users:
> > P0: almost sure to block a release.
> > P1: We will act on it if the maintainer is in the mood some day when
> > it's still fresh
> > P2: We will fix it, maybe
> > P3: thank you for informing us.
>
> That's neither helpful nor true. I certainly fixed many P3s in the past
> - if not for recreational purposes, because I was working in the
> respective area anyways.
>
> For issues that are low priority but hard to fix however... well as in
> every project: bad luck.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joerg
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Long-lived P1 issues

[Joerg Bornemann]

On 12/4/20 5:42 AM, NIkolai Marchenko wrote:


Let's be honest with your users:
P0: almost sure to block a release.
P1: We will act on it if the maintainer is in the mood some day when 
it's still fresh

P2: We will fix it, maybe
P3: thank you for informing us.


That's neither helpful nor true. I certainly fixed many P3s in the past 
- if not for recreational purposes, because I was working in the 
respective area anyways.


For issues that are low priority but hard to fix however... well as in 
every project: bad luck.



Cheers,

Joerg
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development