Severities and priorities in bugzilla

[Falk Hueffner]

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