[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: critical issues
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: critical issues |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:56:25 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:32:56PM -0000, Phil Holmes wrote:
> From: "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden>
> >On 12/28/10 4:18 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >The difference between Phil's version and the previous version is
> >
> >"Something that worked as it should in a previous version, and now doesn't
> >work." vs.
> >
> >"Something that worked intentionally in one of the previous two stable
> >versions, and now doesn't work."
>
> That's about it.
I want to keep the word "intentionally", though -- if something
only happened to work because of a happy coincidence of bugs, then
"breaking" that should not be a Critical bug.
> Graham wants a regression from (say) 2.6 not to
> count as critical. I thought this was somewhat confusing to new
> bug-squadders to understand and wanted all regressions to count the
> same.
There's two questions here:
1. what do we want to teach new bug squad members / what do we
want bug squad members to do? (IMO these should be the same
thing)
2. what should be the actual priority of a particular issue.
The answer to these need not be the same thing. In particular,
I'd fine telling / expecting bug squad members to make something
Critical if it's a regression, period. Just as long as a
programmer can come by and say "wait, we broke that back in
2005... sure, it's still a bug, but we're not going to delay a
stable release for it. I'm setting it to priority-medium".
Remember the goal of the bug squad is to handle routine
administrative tasks so that programmers can concentrate on more
advanced tasks. If a non-routine task is causing confusion to bug
squad members, or if the administration is causing a burden on
programmers, then it's time to reconsider stuff.
> IMO the question is likely to be moot anyway, since I think
> it's quite unlikely we'll see such a regression reported.
Based on past experience, I'd say there's a >50% chance of seeing
at least two reports of such regressions over the next year.
> >>> TBH I was uncertain whether to add this to the tracker
> >>> at all and only did so because I had a few attempts at getting views
> >>> on whether it was a problem, with no response. I probably labelled
> >>> it a regression, but possibly wrongly.
> >>
> >> My thought process would be this:
> >> 1. am I certain that the new position is ok? If so, do nothing.
> >> 2. am I certain that the new position is not ok? If so, add it as
> >> a Critical issue with a brief description of the problem.
> >> 3. am I not certain either way? If so, add it as a Critical
> >> issue, but note that it may or may not be an actual problem.
>
>
> I'd like to add this guidance to the CG, too.
Sure, sounds fine.
Cheers,
- Graham
- critical issues, Graham Percival, 2010/12/27
- Message not available
- Re: critical issues, Graham Percival, 2010/12/28
- Re: critical issues, Carl Sorensen, 2010/12/28
- Re: critical issues, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2010/12/29
- Message not available
- Re: critical issues,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: critical issues, Trevor Daniels, 2010/12/30
- Re: critical issues, Keith OHara, 2010/12/30
- Re: critical issues, Graham Percival, 2010/12/31
- Re: critical issues, Trevor Daniels, 2010/12/31
- Re: critical issues, Keith OHara, 2010/12/31