I forgot who just sent an email yesterday suggesting we offer guidelines on what a critical bug is, etc. I think this email, and the one sent a week before, fell completely into a void. I just want to say that I think this would save the core developers a lot of time in trying to get rid of critical bugs, by preventing users from submitting non-critical bugs as critical bugs. (I think this is where an hour spent writing the guidelines could save many more hours of going thru the endless critical bugs.) remember, we'll never get down to zero, unless we (you) squash the bugs FASTER than they are reported. there are 2 rates, the rate of fixing, and the rate of reporting. We've been focusing on the former. I suggest we do something about the rate of reporting. Ann
On Friday 03 March 2006 05:15 pm, qomo wrote:
I forgot who just sent an email yesterday suggesting we offer guidelines on what a critical bug is, etc. I think this email, and the one sent a week before, fell completely into a void.
I just want to say that I think this would save the core developers a lot of time in trying to get rid of critical bugs, by preventing users from submitting non-critical bugs as critical bugs. (I think this is where an hour spent writing the guidelines could save many more hours of going thru the endless critical bugs.)
I think as long as users have the ability to file critical bugs, no matter how you define them, you will always have invalid critical bugs. Maybe by defining what qualifies as a critical bug, you'll have fewer invalid critical bugs, but some people just plain think their problems, no matter how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things, are more important than anyone else's.
remember, we'll never get down to zero, unless we (you) squash the bugs FASTER than they are reported.
there are 2 rates, the rate of fixing, and the rate of reporting. We've been focusing on the former. I suggest we do something about the rate of reporting.
Ann
-- Jason Flatt http://www.oadae.net/ Father of Six: http://www.flattfamily.com/ (Joseph, 13; Cramer, 11; Travis, 9; Angela; Harry, 5; and William, 12:04 am, 12-29-2005) Linux User: http://www.sourcemage.org/ Drupal Fanatic: http://drupal.org/
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:45:40 -0800 Jason Flatt wrote:
I think as long as users have the ability to file critical bugs, no matter how you define them, you will always have invalid critical bugs. Maybe by defining what qualifies as a critical bug, you'll have fewer invalid critical bugs, but some people just plain think their problems, no matter how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things, are more important than anyone else's.
true. however, better guidelines can only help minimize the invalid critical issues, and even a slight reduction in the overall number would be a big payoff long term. -derek
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:13:57 +0100, Derek Wright <derek@dwwright.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:45:40 -0800 Jason Flatt wrote:
I think as long as users have the ability to file critical bugs, no matter how you define them, you will always have invalid critical bugs. Maybe by defining what qualifies as a critical bug, you'll have fewer invalid critical bugs, but some people just plain think their problems, no matter how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things, are more important than anyone else's.
true. however, better guidelines can only help minimize the invalid critical issues, and even a slight reduction in the overall number would be a big payoff long term.
My definition: -- When a bug breaks all core. For example sessions, bootstrap one of the form elements or something like that. -- A whole (or most of a) module is unusable. Example: you can't post a forum topic. -- Major part of a module is broken. Example: you can't add a menu with menu module. Regards NK
participants (4)
-
Derek Wright -
Jason Flatt -
Karoly Negyesi -
qomo