On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 12:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:36:54 -0700 > Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > For the record, we do in fact have a policy on this: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Priority_and_Severity > > > > I wouldn't exactly claim that it's universally followed, but it *is* > > there. I do still follow those rules for 'severity' when dealing with > > bugs, for whatever it's worth. > > Well, it also doesn't make as much sense with 'triager' in there and no > triagers around. ;) A triager is one who triages. I still triage things sometimes. I'm like the triage ninja. You never see me coming. ;) > Back to this case, I am not a DNF developer/maintainer, but I can think > of lots of things I would personally prioritze over a slowness issue in > fedora-review (data loss bugs, bugs that prevent people from getting > updates, crashing bugs, bugs that stop releng from doing things they > need to do, etc). In any case, priority/severity should be left to the > maintainers to decide (if they want to use them at all). I think the distinction in the policy is a sensible one: 'severity' is something vaguely objectively quantifiable, which we can attempt to have a universal policy for. 'priority' is entirely at the responsible maintainer/team's discretion and shouldn't be set by anyone else. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
