The 'easy' tag

[Martin Pool]

2009/7/6 David Ingamells <david.ingamells at mapscape.eu>:
>
>>  * well, they were actually easy, but they also weren't really that
>> important
>
> Importance is an orthogonal property of a bug.

Yes, it is.  What I'm getting at here is that fixing
easy-but-uinmportant bugs may not be a good use of time, and we might
be better off fixing fewer but more serious or important bugs.  On the
other hand 'quantity has a quality all its own' and fixing a bunch of
little annoyances might be satisfying to both users and developers,
and maybe also a good chance for new people to send some bug fixes.
At any rate I think it'd be worth spending a day or two.

This is arguably just a redefinition of 'importance', but I don't have
much appetite for that theoretical argument. :-)

>>
>>  * getting easy bugs through review, pqm, etc is inefficient --
>
> I believe what you mean is that the ratio of QA process 'overhead' work to
> 'real' update work is high. Such easy updates are a good opportunity to:
>   - examine the QA process flow and streamline it.
>   - coach newcomers through that QA process.

Right, that's what I meant.  Maybe we can improve our qa process in
general, or maybe we can make sure in particular that it scales down
to small things.
-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>