On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 17:44 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote: > On 2009-04-20, 20:34 GMT, Jerry Amundson wrote: > > Severity is used to describe how bad a bug is for the reporter, > > in the context of the specific component: > > * Urgent: Software is completely unusable, loses data, or the RPM > > won't update properly. Frequent or commonly encountered crashes. > > I know that I might add here something which isn't in the > official definition, but I would suggest this slightly different > definition of severity (gained practice in evaluting it when > I was a lawyer for one huge software company in the Czech > republic): > > the difference between Urgent and High, is that High makes THE > PROGRAM IN QUESTION unsusable, Urgent makes WHOLE SYSTEM unusable > (or it is a security bug). > > Medium than means ... it is real bug, but with possible > workarounds or at least part of the program is still usable. > > Low is the rest. OK, so I spoke to Matej about this proposal on IRC, and we agreed to post a summary to the list for discussion. So! We now have two Proposals, Proposal A and Proposal B. Proposal A is more or less what's on the current draft Wiki page. The salient features are that triagers would set both priority and severity initially (maintainers would have final word on both). Severity would indicate how severe the issue is only within the context of the package itself - crasher is urgent, typo is low, etc. Priority would indicate how urgent (in the triager's judgment, initially, later in the packager's judgment) it is that the issue be fixed - which involves judging how important the issue is in the context of Fedora as a whole. Proposal B is Matej's idea. In this proposal, triagers would set only severity when triaging a bug; they would not touch priority. Severity would work more or less like in Proposal A, except that Urgent would be reserved for issues which have a significant impact on Fedora *as a whole* - say, a bug in initscripts which makes the system fail to boot at all, or something. Issues that are important in the context of the package but don't have any wider implications - say, a bug that causes Firefox to crash, but doesn't break anything else - would be High, they could not be Urgent. In Proposal B, priority would be reserved to maintainers for use however they feel appropriate. So, those are the two ideas. What do people think? Personally I can see the benefits of Matej's approach - it involves fewer grey areas and may make maintainers feel less like their toes are being trodden on - but I feel it loses us rather a lot of granularity. So I'm kinda on the fence. At present I'm leaning towards presenting both options to the developers to see what they like, but input welcome! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
