Re: Status of Bugzilla?

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 
> > Observations on the states of bugs in Bugzilla:
> Note that i haven't made changes to these yet until we have agreement on 
> the states, which we didn't seem to have last time.

Do we have disagreement on them either?  That is, what other variations on
the states (and flow of bugs through the system) do people think we should
use?  I understand all this is configurable?

> Huh?
> What bugs exactly do you want assigned to a 3.1 milestone?
> 
> Those with a version of 3.1 and a priority of high?
> Or all those with a version of 3.1.
> But not any bugs submitted through email?

All those currently in the database with a priority of "high",
irrespective of the version they were originally submitted against - but
not any newly submitted bugs that come into Bugzilla.  ("high" is reserved
to maintainers, and gccbug won't let you submit such bugs, but some old
versions of gccbug out there will.  I don't know whether we fixed gnatsweb
not to let people submit such bugs.)  At present we use "high" for release
engineering - with Bugzilla replacing GNATS it will be possible to handle
things with more versatility, e.g. having both bugs at milestone 3.1.1 and
bugs at milestone 3.2, but the initial presumption is that a bug is "high"
because it (being a regression, or otherwise) must be fixed for 3.1,
rather than 3.0.4 or some other version.

> > (Previously noted:) the Class field from bug reports is useful and should
> > be preserved.  (OTOH, I doubt that Organization is, and Submitter-Id
> > surely is not.)
> 
> We also didn't have real agreement on what to do about 
> priority/severity/class, so i didn't to anything.

Priority and severity there may not have been agreement on (I don't think
I find them useful, beyond the indication of which bugs are critical for
which release, which can be done with milestones, aided with other
Bugzilla features such as dependencies, but don't have any objection to
them carrying over if someone finds them useful); was there any
disagreement about Class?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk