Re: bug rating

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:22:17PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> > - Low: the normal priority.  Sorry, but we just don't have many bug
> >   fixers!  I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about
> >   assigning their pet issue a "higher priority" flag that nobody
> >   pays attention to.
> 
> Mhmm.  Let's pretend that I'm Joe Neeman, and I have some time to fix
> something (and I actually know what I'm doing).  Wouldn't it be
> helpful if I could check the priority flag of the bugs to find
> something I should work on more urgently than other things?

Yes.  I'm sorry, I overreacted initially.

If you would like to change the priority between postponed, low,
and medium issues -- either raising the priority of a postponed or
low one, or lowering the priority of a low or medium one -- go
ahead.

The current rankings between those three levels are not at all
consistent or meaningful.  My attitude (which has probably
somewhat carried over to Valentin and James) was that as long as
we had open high- and regression-priority issues, it didn't really
matter what happened lower down.  That was a mistake.

The release list for 2.14 already contains an item to check
existing bugs to see if they've been fixed without updating the
database; perhaps I could ask the bug meisters to also re-evaluate
the issue's priorities.

I don't think we need an "annoying" tag; better classification
between postponed/low/medium should be sufficient.


The "is it easy to fix" tag is already indicated with the new Frog
tag.  Granted, nobody has looked at the code-related issues with
this in mind, but if anybody wants to do this, the framework is
there.

Cheers,
- Graham