launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Aaron Bentley <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-08-04 04:13 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> IMO when you have two bugs, a bug (A) that is directly critical per
> our triage rules, and a 'high' bug (B) saying that its very hard to
> identify whats going on in bug A, then bug B has to have its
> importance inflated to critical, otherwise bug A will suffer from
> priority inversion: imagine that A is the last critical bug. It can't
> be worked on because the data to solve it will come from closing bug
> B. And B is not critical, so its going to be worked on somewhere in
> the 6-month window of bugs that we try to size the 'high' set to. This
> then gives A an effective priority of 'high'.
> 
> This is a classic priority inversion, and the normal scheduling fix is
> to grant the higher priority to the task holding the resource needed
> by the higher priority.

I guess I'm reluctant to do priority inheritance because fixing bug B
may not be necessary or sufficient to unstick bug A.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5AMtoACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI0ZQACdFvIy0+0H9CU7v4Pr4eURwTCZ
vTcAn0AA0lfYlMb+TGfaFe29qa8s+M6Q
=k95V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----