Severity levels

Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson at
Mon May 4 09:15:20 CDT 2009

>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.


>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.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list