On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:44:59PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Of course, I'm not proposing that anybody stop fixing bugs in order
> > to perform this calculation. I just wanted to get the thought in
> > this thread in case we ever want to seriously approach this in the
> > future
>
> I s
> 1. Severity of the Bug.
> 2. Probability of occurrence of the bug.
> 3. Difficulty of working around.
Very nice!
> Of course, I'm not proposing that anybody stop fixing bugs in order
> to perform this calculation. I just wanted to get the thought in
> this thread in case we ever want to serio
> If you would like to change the priority between postponed, low, and
> medium issues -- either raising the priority of a postponed or low
> one, or lowering the priority of a low or medium one -- go ahead.
I'll eventually do that for my own bugs. However, it's basically the
job of the bugmeist
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:22:17PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > - Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
> > fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
> > assigning their pet issue a "higher priority" flag that nobody
> > pays attention t
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Wouldn't it be
helpful if I could check the priority flag of the bugs to find
something I should work on more urgently than other things? For
example, the Savannah bugzilla allows users to `rate' bugs. The
higher the score, the more people would like to have this bug fixed
On 12/10/09 3:29 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
>> Graham Percival wrote:
>>
> But if nobody is working on fixing them, who cares what the label
> is?!?!
>
> The low vs. medium priority has historically been a mixture of
> "bug s
> If you'd entered them yourself as both Medium, or both
> Low, I wouldn't have said anything.
OK.
> - Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
> fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
> assigning their pet issue a "higher priority" flag that
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> Personally, I don't think `priority'* or `annoying' captures it. I
>> would label them `embarrassing', because they're holding LilyPond
>> back from looking really professional.
>
> But if nobody is work
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:15:21AM -0800, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug
> > hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the
> > issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would
> > you seriously just
Graham Percival wrote:
> Let me turn this around: you are one of our top 10 bug
> hunters. If you had no previous connection to any of the
> issues, how would you decide which bug(s) to work on? Would
> you seriously just start working on whichever item *I* said
> was most important / most annoy
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:22:32AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> is it correct that all fixes, regardless of its annoyance, get a `low
> priority' in case it won't become part of the next `milestone'
> release?
That's not quite correct. There's no functional difference
between Postponed, Low, an
Graham,
is it correct that all fixes, regardless of its annoyance, get a `low
priority' in case it won't become part of the next `milestone'
release?
I consider this categorization a bit coarse, and I would like to see
at least one more level to mark bugs as `annoying' or something like
that.
12 matches
Mail list logo
