launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Gary Poster <gary.poster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 12, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Gary Poster <gary.poster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> ...
>>>  - critical means 'a bug to take next' not 'a bug to interrupt
>>> current work' : we use incidents if we need to interrupt work (and
>>> Francis is updating that separate policy)
>> 
>> I'm sorry to raise this after the fact, but sometimes seeing a policy implemented shows concerns that had not been seen before.
>> 
>> On the team lead call we discussed the fact that some bugs are more critical than others.  In particular, IMO, while we have so many legacy OOPSes, the OOPS bugs, all critical, are going to obscure bugs that truly are problematic or potentially dangerous.
> 
> I think the vast majority of these oops bugs are truely problematic or
> dangerous: there are potential attacks on the zope appserver, for
> instance.
> 
> The ZeroOopsPolicy in its rationale says we want to get to a steady
> state where 'an oops means we need to do something to fix a problem a
> user is experiencing' - thats very much not the case today... but
> imagine if it was:
> - we'd have no critical bugs most of the time
> - any oops, browser regression or functional regression would be critical
> - and all those things really would be serious.
> 
> So to me, what we have now really does match up with 'gee we need to
> do these things now'. Its a big list because we let them starve vs
> feature work - I think of it as a balloon payment on technical debt.

I understand and appreciate your/Jono's/Francis' perspective, but personally am not swayed from my original position.  I'm happy to go along with the consensus or however the decision is made, but I felt it was worth expressing my concerns.

Gary