Bug importances - Suggestion for improvement

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

El 08/04/14 22:35, C de-Avillez escribió:
> Sorry, I do not understand what you said above. Can you please rephrase?

Yes: Although bug management does not apply to workflow bugs, they still 
have to be worked first by developers. So setting these as critical is a 
visual aid for them.


El 09/04/14 00:52, Thomas Ward escribió:
 > In the "How to Triage" guide [1], even, there's a section labeled
 > "Special Types of Bugs" [2], which says that unless you know what you're
 > doing, you shouldn't touch those bugs.  Status included.

Because this is prone to mistake, perhaps we can warn in the Bug 
Statuses page itself that these bugs are not covered in that policy.


El 09/04/14 00:52, Thomas Ward escribió:
 > That's my opinion on this.  Let's move on to actually fixing bugs, not
 > dealing with how we set the importance on special bugs, of which our bug
 > triage rules don't really apply in the same way (if at all, case in
 > point merge requests, sync requests, security bugs (which have slightly
 > different policies), etc.).

There's another relevant part of setting importances for all bugs, which 
is bugs that really need its importance to be set can be catalogued in 
work-flows made of list; without having items in these that cannot be 
cleaned up.

For example, in the following work-flows:
  - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow>
  - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl/Final%20clean-up>
  - <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Ubuntu%20Bug%20Weekend>

Summarizing: While changing status for this bugs can disrupt development 
work-flow, setting their importance to a default value can be a visual 
aid for everyone.