On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:04:09AM +0100, su_v wrote:
On 2013-12-02 23:49 +0100, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:08:33PM +0100, su_v wrote: Also, I see that some good thinking has gone into setting priorities for pretty much all of these bugs, and only a handful are marked High. suv, do you have an opinion on how we should treat the bug priorities for the release? I.e., should we focus heaviest on getting the High priority bugs closed, and not really worry about the low priority ones? Or should priority be interpreted in some other fashion?
Maybe we had been too technically minded in the past when assigning the priorities, roughly based on these criteria:
- high: all crashes (unless they occur under very rare circumstances), bugs with the risk of data loos
- medium: severe bugs for which workarounds are known, bugs which produce incorrect or unxepected results
- low: only occur under rare circumstances, or can be easily worked around, GUI regressions
The statuses do not (or rarely) reflect the impact on usability or the bug's level of 'annoyance'.
Thanks. No that's not too technically minded; in fact I think this is really the best way to prioritize these.
Bryce