Enhancements as opposed to bugs

Daniel van Vugt daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
Fri Oct 18 02:20:22 UTC 2013

Well I tagged a bunch of bugs as [feature] yesterday and already ran 
into ambiguity in some (feature vs enhancement vs bug). I think 
[enhancement] is a better classification because not all enhancement 
requests represent distinct "features". Might switch them to 
[enhancement] today.

On 17/10/13 21:01, Daniel d'Andrada wrote:
> I agree. Cryptic acronyms are bad.
> Another ides is using tags, like suggested here
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431/comments/4. That would
> save us some precious space in the bug title.
> On 16/10/13 23:03, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>> I don't think "[ER]" is very user-friendly. No one outside the team
>> would understand it.
>> How about "[feature]" or "[enhancement]"?
>> On 16/10/13 21:02, Kevin Gunn wrote:
>>> thanks for the feedback.
>>> it likely won't be something to be fixed in a short term - but i agree,
>>> bugs (over blueprints) seem closer to being 'everything' you'd want when
>>> looking at the vices & virtues of bugs vs blueprints.
>>> i think what bugs are missing is a bit of aggregation & reporting ...as
>>> well as a way to better reflect scheduling (for a big picture view)
>>> in the near term - there is certainly nothing wrong with pre-pending to
>>> the bug title...i would suggest "[ER]" for 'enhancement request'...
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Daniel van Vugt
>>> <daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com <mailto:daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>     Though I recall some of the proprietary issue tracking systems I've
>>>     used in the past clearly distinguished between Bug and Enhancement.
>>>     And that in itself was sometimes problematic. Where people can't
>>>     decide or agree if something is a bug or a feature, you either need
>>>     a third classification or a more neutral system that just doesn't
>>>     care (like Launchpad).
>>>     On 16/10/13 09:28, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>>>         I think we all agree Launchpad does not represent
>>>         enhancement/feature
>>>         requests ideally. That's why I asked how we'd like to work
>>>         around the
>>>         shortcomings.
>>>         Also, I just found the bug (which itself is actually a feature
>>>         request)
>>>         and it looks unlikely to be resolved:
>>>         https://bugs.launchpad.net/__launchpad/+bug/176431
>>>         <https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/176431>
>>>         On 15/10/13 22:09, Michał Sawicz wrote:
>>>             On 15.10.2013 16:04, Daniel d'Andrada wrote:
>>>                 Bugs and new features are, on a slighly higher level,
>>>                 the same thing:
>>>                 work that has to be done on some piece of software,
>>>                 according to some
>>>                 specs, with a target milestone, an assignee, a given
>>>                 priority, a state
>>>                 (in progress, new, commited, released), a discussion
>>>                 around it, etc.
>>>                 At my previous job we had different systems for those
>>>                 (bugs and
>>>                 features) for a long time and it was awesome when we
>>>                 finally started
>>>                 using only one (the bug tracker, but tweaked a bit to
>>>                 better accommodate
>>>                 those two kinds of tasks) for everything. I think it's
>>>                 just natural to
>>>                 do so.
>>>             I believe the biggest problem with launchpad in that regard
>>>             is that
>>>             "Wishlist" is the lowest priority (Importance) level. You
>>>             can't make an
>>>             enhancement higher priority than a bug, that's why some
>>> clear
>>>             distinguishing between a bug and a feature would be nice
>>> indeed.

More information about the Mir-devel mailing list