On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:53:39AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > > It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and > > > it seems I'm hitting these two bugs: > > > * dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #1279538 > > I already change priority and severity of #1279538 to urgent > Just as a side note, I don't know anyone who actually uses or cares > about these fields in Fedora land. IMHO you are much better off just > explaining why the bug is important or what it blocks. These fields are effectively useless because they can be changed by anybody. Even leaving aside the cynical thought that most people would put their own problems as top priority / worst severity, everyone has their own sense of what the scale ought to mean. For example, to one person, "extremely slow" might be top-tier, but to another, that should be only used for data-loss issues. For some people, it's should mean prioritizion of _all effort_; for other people, it might just be "of all bugs in this single package, this is the most urgent currently". This kind of prioritization only really works when everyone using it is in alignment about... well, _priorities_. Right now, our only real method for prioritizing bugs at the distro level is the blocker and freeze exception process at release time. It *would* be nice to have some _other_ general method, but no one has put the time or effort into figuring out what one would be like (let alone making or maintaining it). So for now and the foreseeable future, the process for weeding out issue urgency is: bring it to the devel list, and see where the discussion goes. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
