Interesting comments

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:10 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Priority and severity can be set by reporters in MDV Bugzilla. It was my
> > experience that reporters would frequently inflate these values in their
> > initial reports. However, if a triage team member then re-set them to a
> 
> Last I looked (which was a while ago) there was no apparent definition 
> of that these mean. Let me think:

While the URL doesn't start with fedoraproject.org ... I typically
reference how a formal support team defines severity.  For example:
http://www.redhat.com/support/policy/GSS_severity.html.  The wording of
course is centered around a formal support organization, but the
sentiment echoes what you've supplied John.

Would it make sense to begin fleshing out a definition in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Severity ?

> Critical - system unusable
> Serious - system usable with some impairment, or critical but with a 
> workaround.
> Moderate - causes occasional outages, misleading diagnostic messages
> Cosmetic - spelling/grammar errors
> Enhancement Request - not exactly a bug, but ....
> 
> Everyone would probably agree that, if the system won't boot, that is 
> critical. I would expect such a critical error would be a candidate 
> release blocker.

> Probably, most would also reckon that a daily crash would qualify as 
> critical, as would any major component such as X failing.
> 
> As a user, I see Xen failures as critical. I bought a computer, with 
> hardware virtualisation, just so I could use Xen. _I_ might accept that, 
> on the above scale, it might be classified as "serious," but anything 
> less would annoy me.

Thanks,
James
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090311/9e105c90/attachment.sig>