On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 19:08, Heather Flanagan wrote: > You know, there a fair bit of documentation on how to handle a bug that > results in a crash, but not much in the way of dealing with a bug that > is merely annoying, or even just a feature request. A suggestion for > some other time. > Yes. The reason for that is that crashes are easy to identify - most of crash triaging could probably be done by a sufficiently advanced script... otoh, all other bugs end up being value judgements. That's the tricky bit. But anything you think is worth adding to the documentation would be very useful - it's difficult for us to know which bits are lacking. > And be that as it may for now, looking at this latest example of > bug-ness, the gent isn't reporting a crash, just an annoying "feature". > Priority and severity are where they should be. I'd probably add the > keyword "usability", then mark it as either assign or reassign - > thoughts on that? I think this is "minor" because it essentially works, it's an irritation not something completely broken. wrt "usability", this keyword is really for bugs that contain arguments over UI design decisions. In a sense a bug is by definition irritating which makes it a "usability" bug but that's not what the keyword is intended for. -- Andrew Sobala <as583 cam ac uk>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part