On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:10 +0900, John Summerfield wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > Priority and severity can be set by reporters in MDV Bugzilla. It was my > > experience that reporters would frequently inflate these values in their > > initial reports. However, if a triage team member then re-set them to a > > Last I looked (which was a while ago) there was no apparent definition > of that these mean. Let me think: While the URL doesn't start with fedoraproject.org ... I typically reference how a formal support team defines severity. For example: http://www.redhat.com/support/policy/GSS_severity.html. The wording of course is centered around a formal support organization, but the sentiment echoes what you've supplied John. Would it make sense to begin fleshing out a definition in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Severity ? > Critical - system unusable > Serious - system usable with some impairment, or critical but with a > workaround. > Moderate - causes occasional outages, misleading diagnostic messages > Cosmetic - spelling/grammar errors > Enhancement Request - not exactly a bug, but .... > > Everyone would probably agree that, if the system won't boot, that is > critical. I would expect such a critical error would be a candidate > release blocker. > Probably, most would also reckon that a daily crash would qualify as > critical, as would any major component such as X failing. > > As a user, I see Xen failures as critical. I bought a computer, with > hardware virtualisation, just so I could use Xen. _I_ might accept that, > on the above scale, it might be classified as "serious," but anything > less would annoy me. Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
