On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 08:45 -0500, James Laska wrote: > The issues should be flagged/raised/escalated appropriately along with a > basic risk assessment (e.g. users will not be able to run 'yum update'). > This raises some questions for me ... > > * How to assign defect severity? # should we bother? > * When to escalate a defect? > * How to escalate a defect? Quick note, here: the intent of 'severity' and 'priority' is different. Particularly as regards a distribution. 'severity' is how bad the problem is. 'priority' is how fast it should be fixed. Particularly in a distro context, the two don't map directly to each other. Basically, 'severity' should only be judged in the context of the package. If it's a crasher, it's 'critical'; if it's some small cosmetic bug, it's 'minor'. But 'priority' should be judged in the context of the distro. A small cosmetic bug in Firefox that everyone in the world would see may be 'minor' severity but 'release_critical' priority; a crasher bug in some obscure chemistry app may be 'critical' severity but 'low' priority. That's the method that makes sense to me, anyway. I recognize that Fedora doesn't really use the 'priority' field, preferring to use blocker bugs, but I think the 'severity' field can be profitably used to help maintainers organize their bug load - if Bugzappers correctly identify the 'severity' of each bug, a busy maintainer can prioritize 'critical' issues over 'minor' ones. -- adamw -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
