On Sep 21, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 05:08:18AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote: > > 'reportbug' is right, one of grave's meanings is that the package is > > broken itself. Although if not everybody can reproduce that then it's > > not grave, as you say. > > And there's another reason why users shouldn't be prompted about severities > the way they are now -- they usually can't get the whole picture in order to > decide on these things.
Hmm... well, maybe different types of users should get different types of severity prompts, with a default level of "luser" with very limited options and simpler explanations... however, the dictionary definitions of these severities are important to developers... Frankly I don't know what the best solution is... words like "grave" and "critical" are tempting to choose, but on the other hand power users and developers *do* know what they mean. 'bug' uses numbers instead of the real severity names, which might be an approach, but it treats the users as stupid, and I'm inclined against that. My gut feeling is that we let the users do the first level of bug triage, and then developers can agonize about reclassifying the < 5% they get wrong. I'd rather see 100x too many grave reports than let one slip through at "normal" because we put some artificial barrier in the way of bug reporting. (I also don't know how much Branden's Justification patch will address your concerns; it's only been in testing for a week or so... but in theory it should cut down on this problem.) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Instructor and Doctoral Student, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi 208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5765
