This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
- From: Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Date: 03 Jun 2003 17:42:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: Severities and priorities in bugzilla
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306031002590.21442-100000@gandalf.ices.utexas.edu>
Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> writes:
> We presently have 6 severity and 5 priority classes in bugzilla. [...]
> Apart from the fact that the description of the severities seems not
> really taylored to gcc, I think that these are just too many different
> states.
I agree.
> How about
> Severities
> Critical A regression or other important broken functionality
> Normal Any bug where gcc generates wrong code or doesn't conform
> to some relevant standard, or where diagnostics are
> misleading
I don't see why you would put wrong-code in this category. IMHO,
wrong-code are really the worst kind of bugs and should nearly always
be Critical.
> Minor Small enhancements, minor stuff that does not affect
> usability of gcc but would be nice to have
>
> Priorities
> P1 Most important. Should be fixed in the next possible
> release
> P2 Should eventually be fixed, but no timeframe is set
> P3 Least important
>
> To me, having Severity, Priority, and Milestone is still a little
> confusing. Is there a way to enforce that all P1 priority bugs have a
> milestone set?
How about kicking Priorities completely?
--
Falk