ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <ubuntu@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

* Alberto Salvia Novella (es20490446e@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> David Alan Gilbert:
> >I don't normally regard a crash as Critical if it's recoverable
> >and it doesn't happen at boot; there are lots of things that have
> >X crashes on certain machines and you can't make them all critical
> >otherwise you'd never spot the really critical stuff like data corruption
> >or wiping disks or destroying hardware.
> >
> >Now if this happened for loads of people with a standard setup then
> >I'd head towards critical, but not for something that affects a few machines.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> What calls my attention here is that people usually uses their own
> criteria instead of that in the documentation, what I think it's a
> sign that things can be done better.

> So here's my proposal:
> <http://tinyurl.com/leo2je8>

It's not really any more useful; 'inoperable state' isn't very
well defined, and it doesn't really highlight the differences
between:
  a) Permenantly damage (e.g. means machine will no longer get to BIOS
                         which fortunately we see very very rarely)
  b) Requires reinstallation (it happens)
  c) Loses your data    (rare, but it happens)
  d) Crashes regularly

The Importance settings are to some degree a judgement call, and that's
OK, if you're setting the Importance field you should understand the
bug and look at the triage criteria and think about other bugs you've
seen as well, I normally then say *why* I chose a particular importance
(normally by quoting lines out of the BugsImportance)

Dave

-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    |       Running GNU/Linux       | Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org |                               | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/