>You're one guy against the world. So far, no one on this thread has >responded positively to your proposal to overhaul severities. I'd >suggest you stop acting like it's an inevitability
Ok then. >Once again bugzilla is a developer's tool, not a collection of data >for users. We already have the Wiki, forums and AppDB satisfying the >users' needs. Ok. >Point is that metabugs, though useless to users, are important for the >REAL target audience of bugzilla: developers. >Repeat after me: > Bugzilla is there for the developers, not the users .... Better not let them in then. >A user-centric focus on bug priorities simply would not work with a >project as large (massive?) as Wine is. .... Repeat after me: "Nicklas Is not proposing a user centric focus, which would be insane, he is merely talking about weighing it in." "Nicklas Is not proposing a user centric focus, which would be insane, he is merely talking about weighing it in." I have actually forgot how many times I have tried to say this. >Then they disappear. There would be no way to search for metabugs, for >example, whereas at the moment you can search for Blockers. There's no >point in keeping metabugs if there's no ... I would search for priority 1 bugs. To be a priority 1 bug it would had to had been either a blocker or critial. Metabugs...well, if they are used a lot maybe that will become a problem. But aren't using metabugs a bit wrong anyway? >You're now implying that all bugs should be given equal priority. No I am not. I rarely imply. >Some bugs *can't* be fixed without limitations lifted in other areas (e.g. >introduction of Xinput2). They could still be severe (mouse-related >bugs could easily attain Major severity) but be a low priority due to >forces outside of Wine. Then severity would be critical and priority 4. > Mixing is up like is done now makes it: > a) more complicated for users. b) more difficult to severity in statistics. >a) is not a consideration for bugzilla. It has to be easy for the >developers that respond. >b) is nonsensical. We're talking about two very different forms of >statistics. Bugzilla is the place for developer-side severity (which >is what's in place now); forums and AppDB are the places for user-side >severity (which is what you're suggesting). By definition, there is no >way to gather statistics on one when the other is used. a) You are right. Keep them users out of there. b) I thought that priority was developer priority and severity was severity for the users. >Please quote with context! And having no definitions of the severity >levels is just asking for trouble. Surely you realise that every user >will have a different opinion on how serious their bug is, and what >the boundaries for "Low", "Medium", "High" and "Critical" are, which >will likely vary greatly from what the developers responding to the >bugs think? Conflict between developers and users is bad, and having >real definitions of the severity levels allows the devs to say "well, >your 'Critical' bug that has a simple but tedious workaround doesn't >fit the definition of Critical, so it's being downgraded to 'Minor'." If one say severity is in usage context and priority is in big-picture context there would be less conflicts. >I can't tell what you're talking about here. Ok. The same. >1) "A few years" is rapid? Yes. I'd say so. I a large project's life, anyway. >2) "Drifting away" from usability when we've always (AFAIK) had the >current severity levels (but not necessarily the definitions), and >established that the system works well to assist developers >categorising the bugs? Wine hasn't been used seriously by people until now. When something goes from being only a toy to a real too it brings changes. >3) "Such a small skew", as in handing over full control over what >priority should be given to the bug to the users? And before you say >it's not "full control", if it's not something that will seriously >influence the way bugs are prioritised, it's pointless to do such a >massive overhaul of the severity ratings. Again, I disagree. Massive? Renaming some categorisations? >4) "Normal" getting fixed more than "minor" is a problem? Yes, this can be a huge problem if minor consists of annoyances. In the end, one have a system that works, but in a very annoying way. >Applications still have to be treated on a per-app basis. Every app is >different, and in extreme cases different versions of the same app use >violently different API calls. Yes, but I am talkic >Correct, games and 3D applications do tend to use DirectX, whereas >office applications don't (tend to). Well done, astute observation. It >doesn't mean that a joystick fix for GTA:San Andreas will work with >Gunmetal, or that a WineD3D patch for COD4 will improve performance in >Supreme Commander. They're all individuals! (Chorus: Yes, they're all >individuals!) They're all different! (Chorus: Yes, they're all >different!) (I'm not) (shhh) I think you are just being negative, to be honest. So games aren't more like each others than they are like a word processor? Support forums are normally grouped into areas this way, why can't wine do this? >That's what searching is for. Try searching it for "blockers" then. :-) Splitting would be a rough categorization of threads that I think would be beneficial, that's all.
