launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Micah Gersten <micahg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/30/2011 04:54 PM, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
> Hello launchpadders,
>
> Last week on the TL call, we agreed on a change in the way to track our
> critical inventory.
>
> Like the critical analysis showed, we have a deep mine of undiscovered
> critical showing up or waiting to be filed. We don't know how deep the
> mine is, but until we address the tech-debt sustaining it (design for
> performance, test coverage, etc.) we'll keep getting new ones. Tracking
> these ones doesn't really give us a good indicator on whether we are
> improving in quality or not.
>
> So we need to track criticals introduced by new work separately so that
> we can ensure that we are improving our quality, or at the bare minimum,
> not degrading. (And address quickly degradation trends.)
>
> We already have a tag for regressions. But we don't have a tag for
> critical bugs introduced by new features. So what should we use to group
> these? I know that each feature have their own tag, (currently
> disclosure and bug-columns for example), but it would be easier for
> historical tracking if there was a common tag that was always used.
>
> 'feature' could be it, but we use it to indicate bugs that are really
> feature request.
>
> So I'm looking for suggestions.
>
> Cheers
>
>
What about feature-regression or regression-feature?

Micah