RFC: tracking regressions with bugtags

[Martin Pool]

On 31 May 2010 16:08, Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com> wrote:
> We have regressions from time to time. It would be nice to be able to
> call them out in the bug tracker, to sensibly discuss how often and
> what the impact is. And potentially to consider prioritising them
> differently to other bugs, though thats a discussion with lots of
> corners, and one we should have another day.
>
> So I propose a new bug tag, and associate bug triaging rules. The tag
> is 'regression', and it should be put on bugs where something has
> unintentionally gotten worse than it used to be. E.g. status FILE
> showing ignored versioned files twice as happens at the moment.
>
> What say ye all?

I think that's good.

I don't think regressions should always come before other bugs, or
that bugfixes should always come ahead of new feature work.  (And
anyhow the boundaries between them are sometimes blurred or
subjective.)  But I do think it's worth tracking them and thinking
about whether they add up to a balanced diet.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>