Hi all! First, I couldn't find any list more suitable than this one to comment the severity levels in the bug reporting so I post it here. If this was a really bad thing to do, please tell me were to do so. Secondly, don't take this wrong, I am not here to preach, I actually think this is a serious problem. I am not drunk either. Currently. :-) So, with regards to severity levels: Current severity levels are perfect for server applications where everything is simply about functionality working or not working. However, the overwhelming majority of windows applications in general, and those being ported through wine in particular are GUI-based, end-user applications. When it comes to these kinds of applications, in front of which actual people sit for hours on end doing actual work, other factors come into play. So I would like to introduce a bold new weight into the severity assessment: The user experience. Or at least the bugs' negative impact on it. The user experience(UE from here on) is really quite impossible to quantify exactly, luckily that is not usually necessary. There are several reasons to incorporate this into the severity classification, but I'll stop at two: 1. The ones reporting the bugs will come across with how severe they think the bug is to them. Currently, there is far too much of "you've got a almost black screen or black square instead of icons running Photoshop?..hmm that's really trivial...an 'UI glitch', but OK then, I'll mark it minor to be nice to ya." To a user, even an advanced one, this must feel like talking to a condescending Martian. Frustrating, if not infuriating. Likely, they will never again take the time to make a bug report. It is even quite likely that they will give up their move away from windows. 2. Currently, fixing a "trivial" UE-bug can make way more users happy than fixing a "normal" functionality-bug. This means that bug fixing is prioritized on a basis other than catering to the users needs. And to me, that's something that really shows. Can one defend this without invalidating the wine project? It is a serious question, I might have missed something fundamental. Anyway, I have some ideas on how to make the severity classifications better(and more intuitive for the mere user), but I won't go in to that now. I just want to know if any of you agree with me. Do I make a valid point? //Nicklas PS. I repost this since I didn't get any post from the server the first time. Also I expect this post to piss some off, which makes it even stranger not to get any replies at all. BTW, I also just read in a comment in a bug report that the severity flag doesn't mean much at all when it comes to how a bug is prioritized. So the only input the users have on how important a bug is to them is practically ignored? Why have that checkbox then? And why make such a big thing of it not being correctly set? DS.
Outside Major/Critical/Enhancement, I don't think severity useful, to be honest. Problem is, more often than not, a minor implementation glitch can result into an application breaking all around if it relies on it a lot. Which is pretty much the case with photoshop at the moment. Maybe it should be renamed to "impact", or something that would present itself differently to a first-time user. Or add a second severity field. I don't know, not my call. 2009/5/1 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Hi all!
First, I couldn't find any list more suitable than this one to comment the severity levels in the bug reporting so I post it here. If this was a really bad thing to do, please tell me were to do so. Secondly, don't take this wrong, I am not here to preach, I actually think this is a serious problem. I am not drunk either. Currently. :-)
So, with regards to severity levels:
Current severity levels are perfect for server applications where everything is simply about functionality working or not working. However, the overwhelming majority of windows applications in general, and those being ported through wine in particular are GUI-based, end-user applications. When it comes to these kinds of applications, in front of which actual people sit for hours on end doing actual work, other factors come into play.
So I would like to introduce a bold new weight into the severity assessment: The user experience. Or at least the bugs' negative impact on it. The user experience(UE from here on) is really quite impossible to quantify exactly, luckily that is not usually necessary.
There are several reasons to incorporate this into the severity classification, but I'll stop at two:
1. The ones reporting the bugs will come across with how severe they think the bug is to them. Currently, there is far too much of "you've got a almost black screen or black square instead of icons running Photoshop?..hmm that's really trivial...an 'UI glitch', but OK then, I'll mark it minor to be nice to ya." To a user, even an advanced one, this must feel like talking to a condescending Martian. Frustrating, if not infuriating. Likely, they will never again take the time to make a bug report. It is even quite likely that they will give up their move away from windows.
2. Currently, fixing a "trivial" UE-bug can make way more users happy than fixing a "normal" functionality-bug. This means that bug fixing is prioritized on a basis other than catering to the users needs. And to me, that's something that really shows. Can one defend this without invalidating the wine project? It is a serious question, I might have missed something fundamental.
Anyway, I have some ideas on how to make the severity classifications better(and more intuitive for the mere user), but I won't go in to that now. I just want to know if any of you agree with me. Do I make a valid point?
//Nicklas
PS. I repost this since I didn't get any post from the server the first time. Also I expect this post to piss some off, which makes it even stranger not to get any replies at all. BTW, I also just read in a comment in a bug report that the severity flag doesn't mean much at all when it comes to how a bug is prioritized. So the only input the users have on how important a bug is to them is practically ignored? Why have that checkbox then? And why make such a big thing of it not being correctly set? DS.
-- Adys
The severity levels are there for guidance. I would hope that common sense would prevail, but clearly it doesn't. If a UI glitch makes a program unusable, then it's normal. I can not believe you need this pointing out to you. http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1347 "Screen is wiped/blanked on usage of DirectDraw (black screen/desktop)" = UI glitch = Sev. Normal Common sense people, that's all that is asked.
I am not sure that common sense is the issue. I think it is a question of who you are and what you know. Among the ones submitting bugs now is a quickly rising percentage of normal-to-advanced end users, and that percentage is likely to rise even further, as Linux adoption rates increase. 10 million desktops is the last number I've heard..and people are learning how to report problems. Hell, my mom(77 years old) reported a bug a while ago. My point is, why not adapt the severity levels to the competence level of the submitters instead of having to correct them all the time, creating badwill? Can't the three highest severity levels just be removed? Are they relevant? 1. Blocker "Blocks development and/or testing work" - Is this even possible? 2. Critical "Critical problem that prevents all applications from working" - Possible, if everyone stopped testing code completely, and also unlikely to be reported by a user. 3. Major "Major loss of functionality for a wide range of applications - Isn't this just all bugs that has more than $arbitrary_number of applications linked to them? An aggregate, rather than a level? Then, the severity(or "impact") levels could be: Critical High Medium Low This is way easier to understand for normal people. Also, the definition of each level should not be all that clear(except maybe critical) either, the levels will be discussed anyway, so it is easier to motivate for the developers to grade down a bug without too much discussion. Because the more people start using wine to actually make a living, the more important it will be to them. One would think that vague levels would create more discussion, but according to my experience, and with end-users, it seems to work the other way. And yes, I know that the bug reporting system is used by the developers internally as well, but do you really use the first two levels so often that you need them(I hope not)? //Nicklas
Nicklas Börjesson wrote:
I am not sure that common sense is the issue. I think it is a question of who you are and what you know. Among the ones submitting bugs now is a quickly rising percentage of normal-to-advanced end users, and that percentage is likely to rise even further, as Linux adoption rates increase. 10 million desktops is the last number I've heard..and people are learning how to report problems. Hell, my mom(77 years old) reported a bug a while ago.
My point is, why not adapt the severity levels to the competence level of the submitters instead of having to correct them all the time, creating badwill?
Can't the three highest severity levels just be removed? Are they relevant?
1. Blocker "Blocks development and/or testing work"
- Is this even possible?
Yes. http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=all...
2. Critical "Critical problem that prevents all applications from working"
- Possible, if everyone stopped testing code completely, and also unlikely to be reported by a user.
No, critical bugs are usually opened by non-Linux users.
3. Major "Major loss of functionality for a wide range of applications
- Isn't this just all bugs that has more than $arbitrary_number of applications linked to them? An aggregate, rather than a level?
No, it's actually what it say, a WIDE RANGE of applications.
Then, the severity(or "impact") levels could be:
Critical High Medium Low
This is way easier to understand for normal people. Also, the definition of each level should not be all that clear(except maybe critical) either, the levels will be discussed anyway, so it is easier to motivate for the developers to grade down a bug without too much discussion. Because the more people start using wine to actually make a living, the more important it will be to them. One would think that vague levels would create more discussion, but according to my experience, and with end-users, it seems to work the other way.
And yes, I know that the bug reporting system is used by the developers internally as well, but do you really use the first two levels so often that you need them(I hope not)?
As above. Searching for critical bugs would have answered that question. http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=all... Bugzilla is to track bugs, it's not a user support forum, and the bugs should be classified as the dev's want them to be classified. That's what this is for: http://bugs.winehq.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity Normal: For an application crash or loss of functionality UI glitch or not, if you can't use an app, you can't use it. This is common sense.
//Nicklas
Your line length needs fixing. "Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5" This is why.
This is way easier to understand for normal people.
Speaking as a non-technical user who does file bug reports now and then, I have always found the definitions of the severity levels to be perfectly clear, even when I was new to Wine, and from what I've seen, when a reporter sets the wrong severity level, it's usually because they didn't bother to read the definitions in the first place. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
The normal user doesn't even understand that the definitions should be read, most people think they know what "trivial", "minor","normal","major" means anyway. I actually discussed this with some friends recently. I just think that it could be more user-oriented. Non-technical? Posting on and following the wine-devel list? Severity levels perfectly clear? I must say, you've got some serious credibility issues.. :-) //Nicklas -----Original Message----- From: Rosanne DiMesio [mailto:dimesio(a)earthlink.net] Sent: Sat 2009-05-02 19:09 To: Ken Sharp Cc: Nicklas Börjesson; wine-devel(a)winehq.org Subject: Re: Severity levels
This is way easier to understand for normal people.
Speaking as a non-technical user who does file bug reports now and then, I have always found the definitions of the severity levels to be perfectly clear, even when I was new to Wine, and from what I've seen, when a reporter sets the wrong severity level, it's usually because they didn't bother to read the definitions in the first place. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
On Sat, 2 May 2009 21:08:23 +0200 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se> wrote:
Non-technical? Posting on and following the wine-devel list? Severity levels perfectly clear? I must say, you've got some serious credibility issues.. :-)
I think "middle-aged college English teacher who couldn't code if her life depended on it" counts as non-technical. :-) The only thing that sets me apart from most users is the fact that I actually do RTFM, but that's just because I'm one of those eccentric academics who thinks reading is a really good way to learn. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
I think "middle-aged college English teacher who couldn't code if her life depended on it" counts as non-technical. :-) The only thing that sets me >apart from most users is the fact that I actually do RTFM, but that's just because I'm one of those eccentric academics who thinks reading is a >really good way to learn.
Reading? But you are going to end up all cross-eyed, dear? Everything I know about programming I have learned from stories my parents told me as a kid. And they heard them from their parents and now I am passing it on to my 3-year old daughter. She is very much into the older Windows API:s right now and just wants to hear that story about oleacc.dll again and again and again.
Ok, I have made better posts.
1. Blocker "Blocks development and/or testing work"
- Is this even possible?
Yes.
I am sorry. Of course it is possible to have these problems. I thought it meant that it blocks ALL development and/or testing work(since it is above critical). In the list, there are mostly platform-specific issues. My mistake.
2. Critical "Critical problem that prevents all applications from working"
- Possible, if everyone stopped testing code completely, and also unlikely to be reported by a user.
No, critical bugs are usually opened by non-Linux users.
Here I did search, and actually, most bugs have "linux" as an operating system so I couldn't come to that conclusion. Anyway, I get your point. Still don't really see why this is a separate severity level, though. Wouldn't this be a "wineloader" component or something?
3. Major "Major loss of functionality for a wide range of applications
- Isn't this just all bugs that has more than $arbitrary_number of applications linked to them? An aggregate, rather than a level?
No, it's actually what it say, a WIDE RANGE of applications.
Ok..I just thought that "wide range" could be translated into a number or percentage instead of an expression. I thought the opposite way...but couldn't possibly all bugs in wine affect a wide range of appliacations?
Bugzilla is to track bugs, it's not a user support forum, and the bugs should be classified as the dev's want them to be classified.
No, I know it is not a support forum(Is users using is as such a big problem?). But it is nevertheless an interface towards the users of wine. A place they go to when all else has failed(hopefully). And as such it is utterly confusing(for them) and already leads to pointless misunderstandings and frustrations regarding, for example, the severity flag. Anyway. I can't help but feel that we are on completely different pages in many ways. I think that the users should have quite a say with regards to how important a bug is, because for every user putting in the (considerable for a user) effort of reporting a bug, there are dozens that don't say anything at all. In wine's case, because of it's size, this might actually be hundreds. It's badwill. So currently, there is no way at all for users to influence these priorities. To me, user priorities would be a considerable factor, obviously not the only one, but considerable. I know that wine, to a large extent, Is maintained by unpaid individuals(like myself) that want to prioritize themselves. I don't want to take that right away from them, I just feel that it's bad practice to disregard the users' priorities. //Nicklas PS.
Your line length needs fixing. I have to admit I sent this using my employers horrible web mail (no idea why it says 6.5 though, think it is 2005). We will pretty soon "exchange" it, though. :-) DS.
2009/5/2 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
2. Critical "Critical problem that prevents all applications from working"
- Possible, if everyone stopped testing code completely, and also unlikely to be reported by a user.
No, critical bugs are usually opened by non-Linux users.
Here I did search, and actually, most bugs have "linux" as an operating system so I couldn't come to that conclusion. Anyway, I get your point. Still don't really see why this is a separate severity level, though. Wouldn't this be a "wineloader" component or something?
Not all critical bugs are caused by the loader. It's possible for d3d/ole/etc. to have a similar effect.
3. Major "Major loss of functionality for a wide range of applications
- Isn't this just all bugs that has more than $arbitrary_number of applications linked to them? An aggregate, rather than a level?
No, it's actually what it say, a WIDE RANGE of applications.
Ok..I just thought that "wide range" could be translated into a number or percentage instead of an expression. I thought the opposite way...but couldn't possibly all bugs in wine affect a wide range of appliacations?
Sure, it's just not as common as you'd think.
Bugzilla is to track bugs, it's not a user support forum, and the bugs should be classified as the dev's want them to be classified.
No, I know it is not a support forum(Is users using is as such a big problem?).
You'd be surprised...
But it is nevertheless an interface towards the users of wine. A place they go to when all else has failed(hopefully). And as such it is utterly confusing(for them) and already leads to pointless misunderstandings and frustrations regarding, for example, the severity flag.
Anyway. I can't help but feel that we are on completely different pages in many ways. I think that the users should have quite a say with regards to how important a bug is, because for every user putting in the (considerable for a user) effort of reporting a bug, there are dozens that don't say anything at all. In wine's case, because of it's size, this might actually be hundreds. It's badwill.
So currently, there is no way at all for users to influence these priorities. To me, user priorities would be a considerable factor, obviously not the only one, but considerable. I know that wine, to a large extent, Is maintained by unpaid individuals(like myself) that want to prioritize themselves. I don't want to take that right away from them, I just feel that it's bad practice to disregard the users' priorities.
Keep in mind, most developers are unpaid as well. They're the ones fixing the bugs, not users. While users are important, no work gets done without the developers. Developers have no way to prioritize one user over another. The best way to prioritize *your* bug is to make a *good* bug report. Make sure all needed information is included. Get a testcase if possible. Provide the needed traces, etc. Even better, is to write a patch yourself. The source is there, and there is nothing stopping you from writing a patch. As a developer that spends more time testing than coding/etc., I see both sides of the coin. But keep in mind, that there are thousands of users, and just as many applications. Prioritizing one user/application over the other is almost always impossible, for obvious reasons. Picking your bug instead of Bob's bug just pisses Bob off, and vice versa. So how is most bug fixing done? Developers big bugs that interest them, that affect them personally, or that have good bug reports, which makes it fixing it much easier on them. -- -Austin
You'd be surprised... We'll I've looked around at "invalids", but to me it seems that people in general(with a few exceptions of course), tries quite hard until they file a bug report. At least way harder than they do in other FOSS projects I have been involved in, so I can't really say that I would think you've got a problem. At least not yet. Despite the support forum only have one list. More stuff on the wiki would help too.
Not all critical bugs are caused by the loader. It's possible for d3d/ole/etc. to have a similar effect.
Yes, it is possible, but not likely enough to warrant an extra severity level. Yes, I have looked.
Keep in mind, most developers are unpaid as well. They're the ones fixing the bugs, not users. While users are important, no work gets done without the developers.
I know that most developers are also unpaid. With "maintained" I didn't only mean maintainers of versions and so forth.
Developers have no way to prioritize one user over another. The best way to prioritize *your* bug is to make a *good* bug report. Make sure all needed information is included. Get a testcase if possible. Provide the needed traces, etc. Even better, is to write a patch yourself. The source is there, and there is nothing stopping you from writing a patch.
Again. This is not what I am talking about. I am not relevant because I am also an experienced developer, so I have no problems with these things. I can patch like there is no tomorrow, given time. What I am talking about the fact that the ordinary users priorities are very important. Currently they are either: 1.Completely disregarded or 2. If they follow the instruction(where "commons sense" is not mentioned), they're forced to adhere to severity levels that distort or hide their opinion of the problem. And for each user reporting there are dozens that are not. Bad will. It just feels like the entire project should become a bit more user-centric. Now I am not just talking about shinier graphics but about attitude. Maybe soften up a bit ask oneself, "WHY did this person ask this stupid question?", "WHY did he do this EVEN though it says do this?" or "How would I feel if someone said this to me?". //Nicklas
2009/5/3 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
You'd be surprised... We'll I've looked around at "invalids", but to me it seems that people in general(with a few exceptions of course), tries quite hard until they file a bug report. At least way harder than they do in other FOSS projects I have been involved in, so I can't really say that I would think you've got a problem. At least not yet. Despite the support forum only have one list. More stuff on the wiki would help too.
Why should there be multiple support forums? The wiki has _a lot_ of info, most of the time when bugs are closed invalid, wiki links are given to fix the problem. Again, wine _is_ an open source project. If the wiki isn't good enough, add something.
What I am talking about the fact that the ordinary users priorities are very important. Currently they are either: 1.Completely disregarded or 2. If they follow the instruction(where "commons sense" is not mentioned), they're forced to adhere to severity levels that distort or hide their opinion of the problem. And for each user reporting there are dozens that are not. Bad will.
How do you mean their priorities are important? It's an uncomfortable truth, but users priorities aren't important, like has been said dozens of times. Sure, we care about user's bugs, and want to fix them. But every user also thinks *their* app is the most important application to fix. I regularly change around 3-5 bugs _a day_ that are marked critical, because their favorite app XYZ doesn't run. A good portion of that time, the bug is invalid, because they forgot a runtime, e.g., the application didn't bundle msvcrt80 or the like. Wine can't stop development on _everything_ just to get one user's application running. Making user's arbitrary priorities the most important would be doing this.
It just feels like the entire project should become a bit more user-centric. Now I am not just talking about shinier graphics but about attitude. Maybe soften up a bit ask oneself, "WHY did this person ask this stupid question?", "WHY did he do this EVEN though it says do this?" or "How would I feel if someone said this to me?".
No disagreement there. Most developers do have a friendly attitude towards users. If they don't, e-mail them in private, with a copy of what they said and ask them to be more civil. I'd encourage you to subscribe to wine-bugs for a while. Look how much mail/bugs we go through, and you'll quickly see why time to hold every users hand and fix _their_ most important bug is impossible. -- -Austin
Why should there be multiple support forums?
Well, not forums, but as I said different lists for different kinds of applications(games/business/graphics), since they should(?) have related problems. I would think so, anyway.
The wiki has _a lot_ of info, most of the time when bugs are closed invalid, wiki links are given to fix the problem. Again, wine _is_ an open source project. If the wiki isn't good enough, add something.
I am talking about avoiding a bug being submitted at all. Maybe to organize how-to-run information. Sure I could do a bit of that. It's like the idea you had about getting funding, did they tell you to go do it all by yourself?
How do you mean their priorities are important? It's an uncomfortable truth, but users priorities aren't important, like has been said dozens of times. Sure, we care about user's bugs, and want to fix them. ... Users priorities probably affect what severity level they choose. But as I said to Ken, I can't believe that all users are morons. Anyway, regardless of their motives, I still think that they have to be included. If not, the project will slowly drift away and turn into a toy nobody have any use for.
But every user also thinks *their* app is the most important application to fix.
Actually, I can't believe they all are that way. When I first posted a bug here on bugzilla some time ago, one of the first thing I got was you telling me that "there are other applications just as important as yours". The reason in my case was that I completely misunderstood the severity instructions (I had the flu so I was a bit hazy) and mixed it up with the priority instructions. I got going on your comment that Photoshop was not more critical than any other application, which I a far cry from getting pissed of about something with really few users.
Wine can't stop development on _everything_ just to get one user's application running. Making user's arbitrary priorities the most important would be doing this.
Good thing I didn't propose that then. :-) I said it should be a part of the priority and a considerable one. Not the largest one. And I am not talking about users arbitrary priorities, just including more intuitive severity levels(good or bad) when making bug fixing priorities. //Nicklas
2009/5/3 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Why should there be multiple support forums?
Well, not forums, but as I said different lists for different kinds of applications(games/business/graphics), since they should(?) have related problems. I would think so, anyway.
The forums seem to serve this well as is.
The wiki has _a lot_ of info, most of the time when bugs are closed invalid, wiki links are given to fix the problem. Again, wine _is_ an open source project. If the wiki isn't good enough, add something.
I am talking about avoiding a bug being submitted at all. Maybe to organize how-to-run information. Sure I could do a bit of that. It's like the idea you had about getting funding, did they tell you to go do it all by yourself?
How do you mean their priorities are important? It's an uncomfortable truth, but users priorities aren't important, like has been said dozens of times. Sure, we care about user's bugs, and want to fix them. ... Users priorities probably affect what severity level they choose. But as I said to Ken, I can't believe that all users are morons. Anyway, regardless of their motives, I still think that they have to be included.
It doesn't affect anything, so there is no point. We can give every user a gold star and say "yes, it's our highest priority", but it doesn't do anything, so _there is no_ point.
If not, the project will slowly drift away and turn into a toy nobody have any use for.
I highly doubt Wine is going to become irrelevant because users have their bugs reassigned from critical to normal...
But every user also thinks *their* app is the most important application to fix.
Actually, I can't believe they all are that way.
Again, you may not think it, but I've been triaging bugs for 3 years, so I know what does happen.
Wine can't stop development on _everything_ just to get one user's application running. Making user's arbitrary priorities the most important would be doing this.
Good thing I didn't propose that then. :-) I said it should be a part of the priority and a considerable one. Not the largest one. And I am not talking about users arbitrary priorities, just including more intuitive severity levels(good or bad) when making bug fixing priorities.
I think this argument is circular...Wine has no shortage of bugs being reported, we have plenty of new users reporting bugs, and new developers contributing often. You're proposing adding an extra severity rating that no developer will look at, and will only add to confusion (users now have to decide *two* levels rather than one). It won't add any benefit, other than possibly giving users a warm fuzzy feeling that their bug is 'important' to them (which they can already do with voting), but adds confusion, wasted time, and wasted effort. -- -Austin
I think this argument is circular...Wine has no shortage of bugs being reported, we have plenty of new users reporting bugs, and new developers contributing often. You're proposing adding an extra severity rating that no developer will look at, and will only add to confusion (users now have to decide *two* levels rather than one). It won't add any benefit, other than possibly giving users a warm fuzzy feeling that their bug is 'important' to them (which they can already do with voting), but adds confusion, wasted time, and wasted effort.
Yes the voting! I had forgot about that! Actually that pretty much...lessens many of my previous arguments. Well, turns the into moot, really. I still think that the severity levels could be better with regards to UE though, but that seems less important now with the at least theorethical "me too"-power of voting. Again, sorry for taking your time. Too bad nobody mentioned the voting earlier. //Nicklas PS. I never proposed an extra severity flag, but to change it into something more intuitive for the user. I speculated that classification of bugs could be made anyway. DS.
2009/5/4 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
2009/5/3 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Why should there be multiple support forums?
Well, not forums, but as I said different lists for different kinds of applications(games/business/graphics), since they should(?) have related problems. I would think so, anyway.
That would be the case if *everyone* who *ever* produced software banded together and established a one-way-to-do-one-thing API set. Doesn't happen that way. Firefox and IE have drastically different success/failure/issues when running in Wine, as do MS Word and WordPerfect (I bet you thought I was going to say OOWriter!)
The forums seem to serve this well as is.
Also AppDB has a browse feature, and lists bugs that apply to each application (when moderated correctly).
The wiki has _a lot_ of info, most of the time when bugs are closed invalid, wiki links are given to fix the problem. Again, wine _is_ an open source project. If the wiki isn't good enough, add something.
I am talking about avoiding a bug being submitted at all.
By making the bug reporting system more confusing?
Maybe to organize how-to-run information. Sure I could do a bit of that. It's like the idea you had about getting funding, did they tell you to go do it all by yourself?
How do you mean their priorities are important? It's an uncomfortable truth, but users priorities aren't important, like has been said dozens of times. Sure, we care about user's bugs, and want to fix them. ... Users priorities probably affect what severity level they choose. But as I said to Ken, I can't believe that all users are morons. Anyway, regardless of their motives, I still think that they have to be included.
User priorities do not affect which bug should be examined first. All bugs are created equal (and some bugs are more equal than others). Not really the case there, but all bugs of each severity (this is developer-side severity) are created equal and should be treated as such.
It doesn't affect anything, so there is no point. We can give every user a gold star and say "yes, it's our highest priority", but it doesn't do anything, so _there is no_ point.
If not, the project will slowly drift away and turn into a toy nobody have any use for.
I highly doubt Wine is going to become irrelevant because users have their bugs reassigned from critical to normal...
You'd be surprised! Releases will stop, AJ will quit citing user unfriendliness, the Earth will spin off its axis and throw everyone save John Smith from Liverpool out in to space, and so forth, all because MY BUG WAS REDUCED FROM CRITICAL TO NORMAL! It's critical to me, so why is it not critical to the developers? </sarcasm>
But every user also thinks *their* app is the most important application to fix.
Actually, I can't believe they all are that way.
Again, you may not think it, but I've been triaging bugs for 3 years, so I know what does happen.
Maybe you should have said "the average user" instead of "every user", but it's true. If we leave the severity level up to the user, we'll get a whole lot of Critical bugs being submitted that aren't critical on the developer's side.
Wine can't stop development on _everything_ just to get one user's application running. Making user's arbitrary priorities the most important would be doing this.
Good thing I didn't propose that then. :-) I said it should be a part of the priority and a considerable one. Not the largest one.
So where should it sit exactly? In between "how long will this take to code" and "how many apps does this effect"? Should it be higher than "is there a simple, *correct* way to fix this"?
And I am not talking about users arbitrary priorities, just including more intuitive severity levels(good or bad) when making bug fixing priorities.
So, you mean allow the users to arbitrarily select whether THEY think their bug should have a high priority or not?
I think this argument is circular...Wine has no shortage of bugs being reported, we have plenty of new users reporting bugs, and new developers contributing often. You're proposing adding an extra severity rating that no developer will look at, and will only add to confusion (users now have to decide *two* levels rather than one).
No, he's proposing to dump the developer-focused severity completely, because "component + priority should be good enough", and replace it with ill-defined, ambiguous Low, Medium, High, Critical. Blockers and metabugs would also disappear under his proposed model, it seems. After all, what good are metabugs to users? ;)
It won't add any benefit, other than possibly giving users a warm fuzzy feeling that their bug is 'important' to them (which they can already do with voting), but adds confusion, wasted time, and wasted effort.
+1
As I wrote in my earlier post, Austin told me about the voting functionality, and If that is considered when priorities are made, it is likely to keep things pretty on track, making my proposed changes far less important. I still think my thoughts aren't that off anyway, but now they feel a bit more "optional".
No, he's proposing to dump the developer-focused severity completely, because "component + priority should be good enough", and replace it with ill-defined, ambiguous Low, Medium, High, Critical. Blockers and metabugs would also disappear under his proposed model, it seems. After all, what good are metabugs to users? ;)
Exactly. Ben's got it. :-) But blockers and metabugs wouldn't disappear. They would only lose their special classification. They would likely have it's priorities set to 1 by the developer reviewing. In what other way than they are highly prioritized are they different to any other bug? Something that must be fixed, must be fixed, regardless. To me, blocker is a class of bugs, not a level of severity. Mixing is up like is done now makes it: a) more complicated for users. b) more difficult to severity in statistics.
ill-defined I would go further than I'll-defined. I'd say non-defined.
The other things I talked about, drifting away from usability is a fairly rapid process(a few years) that I actually have experienced first hand (well second hand, actually), and it wasn't pretty. You joke about it, but the worst thing about it is that because it really only needs such a small skew to happen, it creeps up on you. Because "normal" get fixed far more often than "minor" bugs.
Firefox and IE have drastically different success/failure/issues when running in Wine, as do MS Word and WordPerfect
Yep, but I'd rather put I it like a Microsoft application has often other problems than externally developed applications(built-in vs using dll:s for everything). Anyway, looking at the forums now, games and 3d applications DO usually have different issues than normal desktop applications. It's more about controllers, DirectX and other stuff. And there are a LOT of posts. 30 new threads the last 24 hours. Lot's to wade through I you're only into D3D issues. If it was different lists, people could become a little bit more specialized. //Nicklas
2009/5/4 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
As I wrote in my earlier post, Austin told me about the voting functionality, and If that is considered when priorities are made, it is likely to keep things pretty on track, making my proposed changes far less important. I still think my thoughts aren't that off anyway, but now they feel a bit more "optional".
You're one guy against the world. So far, no one on this thread has responded positively to your proposal to overhaul severities. I'd suggest you stop acting like it's an inevitability Once again bugzilla is a developer's tool, not a collection of data for users. We already have the Wiki, forums and AppDB satisfying the users' needs.
No, he's proposing to dump the developer-focused severity completely, because "component + priority should be good enough", and replace it with ill-defined, ambiguous Low, Medium, High, Critical. Blockers and metabugs would also disappear under his proposed model, it seems. After all, what good are metabugs to users? ;)
Exactly. Ben's got it. :-)
Point is that metabugs, though useless to users, are important for the REAL target audience of bugzilla: developers. Repeat after me: * Bugzilla is there for the developers, not the users * Bugzilla's target audience is the developers, not the users * Bugzilla's target demographic is the developers, not the users * Bugzilla will fly up Tokyo Tower for the developers, not the users * Bugs on bugzilla are examined, responded and fixed to by developers, not users (OK, there are cases where that last one is false, but wherever code is required ...) A user-centric focus on bug priorities simply would not work with a project as large (massive?) as Wine is.
But blockers and metabugs wouldn't disappear. They would only lose their special classification.
Then they disappear. There would be no way to search for metabugs, for example, whereas at the moment you can search for Blockers. There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no
They would likely have it's priorities set to 1 by the developer reviewing. In what other way than they are highly prioritized are they different to any other bug? Something that must be fixed, must be fixed, regardless.
You're now implying that all bugs should be given equal priority. Some bugs *can't* be fixed without limitations lifted in other areas (e.g. introduction of Xinput2). They could still be severe (mouse-related bugs could easily attain Major severity) but be a low priority due to forces outside of Wine.
To me, blocker is a class of bugs, not a level of severity.
Agreed, Blocker is a class of bugs, but severity is a neat way to keep track of it. You can't have a minor or trivial blocker; all blockers block development in their area.
Mixing is up like is done now makes it: a) more complicated for users. b) more difficult to severity in statistics.
a) is not a consideration for bugzilla. It has to be easy for the developers that respond. b) is nonsensical. We're talking about two very different forms of statistics. Bugzilla is the place for developer-side severity (which is what's in place now); forums and AppDB are the places for user-side severity (which is what you're suggesting). By definition, there is no way to gather statistics on one when the other is used.
ill-defined I would go further than I'll-defined. I'd say non-defined.
Please quote with context! And having no definitions of the severity levels is just asking for trouble. Surely you realise that every user will have a different opinion on how serious their bug is, and what the boundaries for "Low", "Medium", "High" and "Critical" are, which will likely vary greatly from what the developers responding to the bugs think? Conflict between developers and users is bad, and having real definitions of the severity levels allows the devs to say "well, your 'Critical' bug that has a simple but tedious workaround doesn't fit the definition of Critical, so it's being downgraded to 'Minor'."
The other things I talked about, drifting away from usability is a fairly rapid process(a few years) that I actually have experienced first hand (well second hand, actually), and it wasn't pretty. You joke about it, but the worst thing about it is that because it really only needs such a small skew to happen, it creeps up on you. Because "normal" get fixed far more often than "minor" bugs.
I can't tell what you're talking about here. 1) "A few years" is rapid? 2) "Drifting away" from usability when we've always (AFAIK) had the current severity levels (but not necessarily the definitions), and established that the system works well to assist developers categorising the bugs? 3) "Such a small skew", as in handing over full control over what priority should be given to the bug to the users? And before you say it's not "full control", if it's not something that will seriously influence the way bugs are prioritised, it's pointless to do such a massive overhaul of the severity ratings. 4) "Normal" getting fixed more than "minor" is a problem?
Firefox and IE have drastically different success/failure/issues when running in Wine, as do MS Word and WordPerfect
Yep, but I'd rather put I it like a Microsoft application has often other problems than externally developed applications(built-in vs using dll:s for everything).
Applications still have to be treated on a per-app basis. Every app is different, and in extreme cases different versions of the same app use violently different API calls.
Anyway, looking at the forums now, games and 3d applications DO usually have different issues than normal desktop applications. It's more about controllers, DirectX and other stuff.
Correct, games and 3D applications do tend to use DirectX, whereas office applications don't (tend to). Well done, astute observation. It doesn't mean that a joystick fix for GTA:San Andreas will work with Gunmetal, or that a WineD3D patch for COD4 will improve performance in Supreme Commander. They're all individuals! (Chorus: Yes, they're all individuals!) They're all different! (Chorus: Yes, they're all different!) (I'm not) (shhh)
And there are a LOT of posts. 30 new threads the last 24 hours. Lot's to wade through I you're only into D3D issues. If it was different lists, people could become a little bit more specialized.
That's what searching is for.
2009/5/4 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>:
Then they disappear. There would be no way to search for metabugs, for example, whereas at the moment you can search for Blockers. There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no
SUSPENSE! Lost a chunk of line there. There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no way to ... SUSPENSE! no way to distinguish them from regular bugs.
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 10:12:04PM +1000, Ben Klein wrote:
2009/5/4 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>:
Then they disappear. There would be no way to search for metabugs, for example, whereas at the moment you can search for Blockers. There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no way to ... no way to distinguish them from regular bugs.
I was under the impression that Wine didn't want metabugs. I'm sure I've seem comments to that effect in Bugzilla itself... -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE Very-later-year Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson(a)Pobox.com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Marcus Brigstocke http://www.marcusbrigstocke.com/pacman.asp License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ -----------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 4 May 2009 22:12:04 +1000 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/4 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>:
Then they disappear. There would be no way to search for metabugs, for example, whereas at the moment you can search for Blockers. There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no
SUSPENSE!
Lost a chunk of line there.
There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no way to ...
SUSPENSE!
no way to distinguish them from regular bugs.
Wine does have meta bugs look at the application data base. Each application has a list of bugs that effect that program. Why Wine does not use meta bugs in bugzilla is because they end up being "Make my all programs work with wine! Now" list.
IneedAname wrote:
Wine does have meta bugs look at the application data base. Each application has a list of bugs that effect that program.
I think that you missed what a meta-bug is in the Bugzilla sense. A meta-bug would collect all of the applications affected by a particular problem, we do that by adding them to the comments area and closing out the duplicates.
Why Wine does not use meta bugs in bugzilla is because they end up being "Make my all programs work with wine! Now" list.
Either that, or they get abused by folks adding bugs that have NOTHING to do with the original bug. In any case, meta-bugs are not allowed in Bugzilla, period. James McKenzie
You're one guy against the world. So far, no one on this thread has responded positively to your proposal to overhaul severities. I'd suggest you stop acting like it's an inevitability
Ok then.
Once again bugzilla is a developer's tool, not a collection of data for users. We already have the Wiki, forums and AppDB satisfying the users' needs.
Ok.
Point is that metabugs, though useless to users, are important for the REAL target audience of bugzilla: developers. Repeat after me: Bugzilla is there for the developers, not the users .... Better not let them in then.
A user-centric focus on bug priorities simply would not work with a project as large (massive?) as Wine is. .... Repeat after me: "Nicklas Is not proposing a user centric focus, which would be insane, he is merely talking about weighing it in." "Nicklas Is not proposing a user centric focus, which would be insane, he is merely talking about weighing it in." I have actually forgot how many times I have tried to say this.
Then they disappear. There would be no way to search for metabugs, for example, whereas at the moment you can search for Blockers. There's no point in keeping metabugs if there's no ...
I would search for priority 1 bugs. To be a priority 1 bug it would had to had been either a blocker or critial. Metabugs...well, if they are used a lot maybe that will become a problem. But aren't using metabugs a bit wrong anyway?
You're now implying that all bugs should be given equal priority.
No I am not. I rarely imply.
Some bugs *can't* be fixed without limitations lifted in other areas (e.g. introduction of Xinput2). They could still be severe (mouse-related bugs could easily attain Major severity) but be a low priority due to forces outside of Wine.
Then severity would be critical and priority 4.
Mixing is up like is done now makes it: a) more complicated for users. b) more difficult to severity in statistics.
a) is not a consideration for bugzilla. It has to be easy for the developers that respond. b) is nonsensical. We're talking about two very different forms of statistics. Bugzilla is the place for developer-side severity (which is what's in place now); forums and AppDB are the places for user-side severity (which is what you're suggesting). By definition, there is no way to gather statistics on one when the other is used.
a) You are right. Keep them users out of there. b) I thought that priority was developer priority and severity was severity for the users.
Please quote with context! And having no definitions of the severity levels is just asking for trouble. Surely you realise that every user will have a different opinion on how serious their bug is, and what the boundaries for "Low", "Medium", "High" and "Critical" are, which will likely vary greatly from what the developers responding to the bugs think? Conflict between developers and users is bad, and having real definitions of the severity levels allows the devs to say "well, your 'Critical' bug that has a simple but tedious workaround doesn't fit the definition of Critical, so it's being downgraded to 'Minor'."
If one say severity is in usage context and priority is in big-picture context there would be less conflicts.
I can't tell what you're talking about here.
Ok. The same.
1) "A few years" is rapid?
Yes. I'd say so. I a large project's life, anyway.
2) "Drifting away" from usability when we've always (AFAIK) had the current severity levels (but not necessarily the definitions), and established that the system works well to assist developers categorising the bugs?
Wine hasn't been used seriously by people until now. When something goes from being only a toy to a real too it brings changes.
3) "Such a small skew", as in handing over full control over what priority should be given to the bug to the users? And before you say it's not "full control", if it's not something that will seriously influence the way bugs are prioritised, it's pointless to do such a massive overhaul of the severity ratings.
Again, I disagree. Massive? Renaming some categorisations?
4) "Normal" getting fixed more than "minor" is a problem? Yes, this can be a huge problem if minor consists of annoyances. In the end, one have a system that works, but in a very annoying way.
Applications still have to be treated on a per-app basis. Every app is different, and in extreme cases different versions of the same app use violently different API calls. Yes, but I am talkic
Correct, games and 3D applications do tend to use DirectX, whereas office applications don't (tend to). Well done, astute observation. It doesn't mean that a joystick fix for GTA:San Andreas will work with Gunmetal, or that a WineD3D patch for COD4 will improve performance in Supreme Commander. They're all individuals! (Chorus: Yes, they're all individuals!) They're all different! (Chorus: Yes, they're all different!) (I'm not) (shhh)
I think you are just being negative, to be honest. So games aren't more like each others than they are like a word processor? Support forums are normally grouped into areas this way, why can't wine do this?
That's what searching is for. Try searching it for "blockers" then. :-) Splitting would be a rough categorization of threads that I think would be beneficial, that's all.
Guys, y'all are going in a circular argument. No need to cc wine-devel on it anymore. Let's work toward making normal the default level, and move on with our lives. Any developer/user focus for bugzilla argument is WAY beyond beating a dead horse. -- -Austin
Guys, y'all are going in a circular argument. No need to cc wine-devel on it anymore.
I am rather fed up with it as well, also I will soon not have any more time for it since I'll be going back to work tomorrow. I've had stomach flu(!swine) the last week. Circular? More plain disagreement i'd say.
Let's work toward making normal the default level, and move on with our lives.
Yep. Let's do that. Let's aim for the stars.
Any developer/user focus for bugzilla argument is WAY beyond beating a dead horse.
Ok.
2009/5/3 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
It just feels like the entire project should become a bit more user-centric. Now I am not just talking about shinier graphics but about attitude.
Bugzilla not user tool. Bugzilla developers' tool. Bugzilla need work like developers want. 2009/5/4 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
So you suggest making the severity ratings meaningless to anyone but ... well, you don't actually mention anyone knowing what they *really* mean, but I assume an exclusive clique of developers or bugzilla admins? Users have different opinions on what level of bug they encounter depending on what *task* they're trying to perform, which is not particularly useful to developers who need strict reproducability.
No, I mean that the actual meaning of the words "low", "medium", "high" and "Critical" will suffice.
No they won't. In order for the severity levels to be meaningful, they need to be strictly defined. Take the example of contracts or legislation, where otherwise unambiguous words are defined in context just to make it 100% perfectly clear what's being talked about. Wine is a *big* project, and we really don't need massive confusion over what the severity levels mean.
I think most people have a fair understanding what "medium" and "critical" means.
Apparently not. Most people don't see the bigger picture, they only see what they're doing right now (e.g. Critical bugs filed because they have an assignment due the next day when it is in fact only a Minor or Normal bug).
This is not meaningless at all, to trying to clarify these levels is quite pointless though.
OK, so give examples of what would be "low", "medium", "high" and "critical" bugs.
Yes, some people tend to exaggerate their issues, but that's just the way it is.
And removing the definitions can in no way help this.
And to my experience, they are few. Most actually don't exaggerate as much.
So you're suggesting to completely overhaul the system for only a FEW users to be more productive in submitting bugs?
To them, the situation IS critical, bordering on panic. Rather, thinking that their users are exaggerating is a way for developers to not let reality come to close. Hell, I do it myself right now. :-)
Yes, but that's not what the "severity" indicates. As it has already been said, focusing on a particular user's problem just because THEY think it's critical is completely unproductive for a large (massive?) project like Wine. Wine devs need to look at the big picture, as in "What is the overall impact of this bug? Who and what is affected? Roughly how many applications does it affect/break?" and THAT's what the "severity" setting is for. Another way to look at severity is a rough indication of how much code change is expected to be required to fix the bug. In theory (but by no means in all cases in practice), a Minor bug should have very little code changed compared to a Major bug. Again, severity is there for the *developers* to use and understand, not for the users.
I don't see how the reproducibility connects to the severity level?
It doesn't. It connects to the interaction between user and developer. You're talking about user impressions - "THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED NOW OR I WILL DIE" - I'm talking about REAL bug report information - "When you click on this button then hit this menu option, the application draws squiggly lines all over the screen. Graphics card has nVidia 180.29 drivers."
Regarding the priority flag..i was referring to it's visibility, not its state.
Bugzilla doesn't (and can't) know the difference between an average non-tech-savvy user and a hard-core developer. If the priority flag is hidden from average users because they shouldn't change it, then it will also be hidden from people who know how to use it properly, and more importantly the people who NEED to change it (to make their report complete).
There already is a separate category flag. It's called "severity" and it indicates roughly the amount of *functionality* lost due to the bug. "Priority" does not indicate the severity of a bug; a bug may have low priority due to limitations outside of Wine (such as some blocker bugs for copy-protection systems which can't be supported in Wine).
My point is that there should be no need for that flag. Let the users have it as input, and let the developers use component+priority.
Component + priority gives absolutely no indication on the overall impact of a bug, as I have mentioned before. Priority and severity (developer-side severity) do not have a 1-to-1 relationship.
You're not going to like this, but users don't matter quite *that* much on bugzilla. The bug tracker is a developer's tool, and although users are essential to the process (submitting bugs and new information on request), it should be designed as a developer's tool. A user's impression of their problem is irrelevant to the hard data they can provide about lost or missing functionality.
You are right. I don't like it.
Called it!
Especially because the bug tracker is the entire projects tool, not only the developers.
Who runs the project? Developers. Who fixes bugs with committed code? Developers. Who uses bugzilla the most? Developers (most bugs come from users, but developers are the ones who respond to them). What type of project is the Wine project? Software *development*. We're not in customer service, and even if we were, the bug tracker would be pretty much the same.
I this matter can only compare with my own professional(commercial) experience and there, the ones submitting bugs has a *lot* to say, since they won't submit bugs unless they are critical if we don't present them with a smooth interface.
I don't see this happening now. Do you?
From what I've seen of the software industry, a lot of companies have a customer service system that feeds reports into a bug tracker that is closed to the public (i.e. for developers only). Wine is a bit different because the bug tracker is open to the public. Why? Because anyone can submit a patch; anyone can become a developer; anyone can propose a solution or report a problem.
Hmm..only critical bugs..now where have i heard about that..? :-)
Where HAVE you heard about that? Oh, I remember, when you *remove common sense* from the equation, suddenly all bugs become either Enhancement or Critical, depending on the level of arrogance. Sorry, but we don't take our users for idiots. We assume they have common sense, and so far it's been working very well. Ever heard the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Either find some statistics to support your claims that bugzilla needs an overhaul, or stop trying to "fix" a working system. 2009/5/4 Ken Sharp <kennybobs(a)o2.co.uk>:
IneedAname wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:10:03 +0100 Ken Sharp <kennybobs(a)o2.co.uk> wrote:
That would be the "Show Apps affected by this bug" link then. http://appdb.winehq.org/viewbugs.php?bug_id=16281
Thanks I missed that so how but my first point still stands.
Not really. 16281 certainly isn't a major loss of functionality, no matter how many bugs are attached to it.
Apart from the minor loss of functionality thing, I don't count that as a "wide range" of applications. There's a couple of "different version of the same game" there (demo vs retail), as well as multiple games in the same series (such as C&C or LotR). Looks to me like a "wide range" of applications don't use .ANI (which is a very good idea. .ANI is horrible! :D).
Nicklas Börjesson wrote:
I think that the users should have quite a say with regards to how important a bug is, because for every user putting in the (considerable for a user) effort of reporting a bug, there are dozens that don't say anything at all.
To every Wine user, their application not working is critical. This is clear by all the bugs that are logged incorrectly every day, because nobody bothered reading the FAQ.
To every Wine user, their application not working is critical. This is clear by all the bugs that are logged incorrectly every day, because nobody bothered reading the FAQ.
Yep, but that's more an indication on how much work remains to be done on wine than it is an incorrect severity level. If Photoshop(the eternal example) should stop working on windows due to a regression, I am sure the users would consider it critical when they report it to Microsoft. But as the wine project progresses, severity levels will hopefully drop so that there will be more nuances. I just think there is something severely when registering a bug that results in unworkable applications is considered a "normal" or even "minor" bug. To me, that's sending the wrong signals about the ambition of the project. Unless the "not yet suitable for general use" from the faq is everywhere with blinking warning signs. //Nicklas
Nicklas Börjesson wrote:
To every Wine user, their application not working is critical. This is clear by all the bugs that are logged incorrectly every day, because nobody bothered reading the FAQ.
Yep, but that's more an indication on how much work remains to be done on wine than it is an incorrect severity level.
No it isn't. It's an indication on how many people think they're more important than anyone else filing a bug.
If Photoshop(the eternal example) should stop working on windows due to a regression, I am sure the users would consider it critical when they report it to Microsoft.
It doesn't matter what the users think, we've been over this, it would be up to MS coders. They would put a high priority on it because Adobe it a major player, and I'm sure MS makes a lot of money out of them one way or another. This is a FOSS project and has no bearing on severity levels. If a set of devs decide to work on getting a particular app working that's up to them, and we've already been over this too.
But as the wine project progresses, severity levels will hopefully drop so that there will be more nuances.
As Wine progress, the higher severities will be less and less. Higher sev levels will stand out a lot more. That's what they're for.
I just think there is something severely when registering a bug that results in unworkable applications is considered a "normal" or even "minor" bug. To me, that's sending the wrong signals about the ambition of the project.
Nobody else seems to have this problem.
Unless the "not yet suitable for general use" from the faq is everywhere with blinking warning signs.
Bares no relevance whatsoever to severity levels in Bugzilla.
//Nicklas
Note to self: Reply to ALL.
No it isn't. It's an indication on how many people think they're more important than anyone else filing a bug.
I think that you are wrong. Granted, some people do, they are called morons. But most people aren't morons. They are people, and to them, the issue really is critical. At least they think that. Give people the benefit of the doubt here.
It doesn't matter what the users think, we've been over this, it would be up to MS coders. They would put a high priority on it because Adobe it a major player, and I'm sure MS makes a lot of money out of them one way or another. This is a FOSS project and has no bearing on severity levels.
So Photoshop has not been the least prioritized? I don't think you paint the entire picture.
If a set of devs decide to work on getting a particular app working that's up to them, and we've already been over this too.
Obviously. I can't remember opposing that?
Bares no relevance whatsoever to severity levels in Bugzilla. Nothing does, does it?
//Nicklas
Nicklas Börjesson wrote:
No it isn't. It's an indication on how many people think they're more important than anyone else filing a bug.
I think that you are wrong. Granted, some people do, they are called morons. But most people aren't morons. They are people, and to them, the issue really is critical. At least they think that. Give people the benefit of the doubt here.
How many times does this have to be repeated? Severity levels are NOT determined by how much a user wants the app to work. They're just not, deal with it.
It doesn't matter what the users think, we've been over this, it would be up to MS coders. They would put a high priority on it because Adobe it a major player, and I'm sure MS makes a lot of money out of them one way or another. This is a FOSS project and has no bearing on severity levels.
So Photoshop has not been the least prioritized?
What are you talking about? A lot of people use Photoshop, that's why it has been given more attention. This is FOSS software, the more popular an application is, the more people will be involved in getting it to work. Photoshop is very popular. "Acme Inc. Card Counter" is not. Photoshop has been prioritised because it is so popular, it is also affected by a LOT of bugs. This adds up to 1+1=2 and nothing more. Photoshop bugs are prioritised in exactly the same way all the other bugs are.
I don't think you paint the entire picture.
I don't think you can see the picture.
If a set of devs decide to work on getting a particular app working that's up to them, and we've already been over this too.
Obviously. I can't remember opposing that?
Who said you had?
Bares no relevance whatsoever to severity levels in Bugzilla. Nothing does, does it?
Not to you, no. Only what you think is right.
//Nicklas
Ken Sharp wrote:
Nicklas Börjesson wrote:
I think that the users should have quite a say with regards to how important a bug is, because for every user putting in the (considerable for a user) effort of reporting a bug, there are dozens that don't say anything at all.
To every Wine user, their application not working is critical. This is clear by all the bugs that are logged incorrectly every day, because nobody bothered reading the FAQ.
You bet. "The application that I reported, which has a perfectly good Linux port, has to be fixed absolutely last week." I've seen this in the user list again and again. It gets boorish after a while. Let's try user education. You only get to choose normal and we get to up/downgrade until you can prove that you know how to do it right. This is how some companies do it. James McKenzie
2009/5/3 James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net>:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Nicklas Börjesson wrote:
I think that the users should have quite a say with regards to how important a bug is, because for every user putting in the (considerable for a user) effort of reporting a bug, there are dozens that don't say anything at all.
To every Wine user, their application not working is critical. This is clear by all the bugs that are logged incorrectly every day, because nobody bothered reading the FAQ.
You bet. "The application that I reported, which has a perfectly good Linux port, has to be fixed absolutely last week." I've seen this in the user list again and again. It gets boorish after a while.
Let's try user education. You only get to choose normal and we get to up/downgrade until you can prove that you know how to do it right. This is how some companies do it.
James McKenzie
+1. Or just remove priorities for users altogether.
Let's try user education. You only get to choose normal and we get to up/downgrade until you can prove that you know how to do it right. This is how some companies do it.
James McKenzie
+1. Or just remove priorities for users altogether.
I think you mean severity. I agree that users should be limited in what severity level they can set, but I suspect that not allowing them to set severity at all would create too much work for the people who would have to go in and set the severity level for every bug filed. What I would suggest is making the default severity normal rather than enhancement, as that's what's appropriate in most cases anyway (and there's already a bug report, 13363, suggesting just that), and perhaps allowing users to lower the severity if they want. Judgments about raising the severity level above normal should be restricted to the people who know what they're doing. Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
2009/5/3 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>:
What I would suggest is making the default severity normal rather than enhancement, as that's what's appropriate in most cases anyway (and there's already a bug report, 13363, suggesting just that), and perhaps allowing users to lower the severity if they want. Judgments about raising the severity level above normal should be restricted to the people who know what they're doing.
+1 -- -Austin
2009/5/4 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
2009/5/3 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>:
What I would suggest is making the default severity normal rather than enhancement, as that's what's appropriate in most cases anyway (and there's already a bug report, 13363, suggesting just that), and perhaps allowing users to lower the severity if they want. Judgments about raising the severity level above normal should be restricted to the people who know what they're doing.
+1
+1 But how would the restriction work? Not that I'm likely to ever submit a Major or Critical bug report, but I know what they mean ;)
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/4 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
2009/5/3 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>:
What I would suggest is making the default severity normal rather than enhancement, as that's what's appropriate in most cases anyway (and there's already a bug report, 13363, suggesting just that), and perhaps allowing users to lower the severity if they want. Judgments about raising the severity level above normal should be restricted to the people who know what they're doing.
+1
+1
But how would the restriction work? Not that I'm likely to ever submit a Major or Critical bug report, but I know what they mean ;)
I don't know if bugzilla supports that or not. But changing the default to normal is quick and easy. -- -Austin
On Mon, 4 May 2009 00:31:09 -0500 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But how would the restriction work? Not that I'm likely to ever submit a Major or Critical bug report, but I know what they mean ;)
I don't know if bugzilla supports that or not.
But changing the default to normal is quick and easy.
--
Just changing the default to normal should solve a lot of the problem; people are less likely to change the severity level if the one they're presented with looks reasonable. I know what Major and Critical mean too, but I can live without being able to make that change myself if restricting it will help. There's always the comment field to state an opinion. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
Just changing the default to normal should solve a lot of the problem; people are less likely to change the severity level if the one they're >presented with looks reasonable. I think so too. Especially if the selected one, "enhancement" almost certainly is wrong.
I know what Major and Critical mean too, but I can live without being able to make that change myself if restricting it will help. There's always >the comment field to state an opinion. I agree here as well. I would also rename "trivial" to "low", "minor" to "medium" and "normal" to "high". *ducks*
//Nicklas -----Original Message----- From: wine-devel-bounces(a)winehq.org on behalf of Rosanne DiMesio Sent: Mon 2009-05-04 13:39 To: Austin English Cc: wine-devel(a)winehq.org Subject: Re: Severity levels On Mon, 4 May 2009 00:31:09 -0500 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But how would the restriction work? Not that I'm likely to ever submit a Major or Critical bug report, but I know what they mean ;)
I don't know if bugzilla supports that or not.
But changing the default to normal is quick and easy.
--
Just changing the default to normal should solve a lot of the problem; people are less likely to change the severity level if the one they're presented with looks reasonable. I know what Major and Critical mean too, but I can live without being able to make that change myself if restricting it will help. There's always the comment field to state an opinion. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>
On Sat, 2 May 2009 16:52:06 +0200 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se> wrote:
3. Major "Major loss of functionality for a wide range of applications
- Isn't this just all bugs that has more than $arbitrary_number of applications linked to them? An aggregate, rather than a level?
In that case #16281 would be major not minor, That is if all the applications that has that bug link to it. I think you can not find out how many applications link a bug. As that has not be coded. To find out that information you would have to scan the application data base or change the way the data base holds this data. I think you want to read bug #16284.
IneedAname wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 16:52:06 +0200 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se> wrote:
3. Major "Major loss of functionality for a wide range of applications
- Isn't this just all bugs that has more than $arbitrary_number of applications linked to them? An aggregate, rather than a level?
In that case #16281 would be major not minor, That is if all the applications that has that bug link to it.
I think you can not find out how many applications link a bug. As that has not be coded. To find out that information you would have to scan the application data base or change the way the data base holds this data. I think you want to read bug #16284.
That would be the "Show Apps affected by this bug" link then. http://appdb.winehq.org/viewbugs.php?bug_id=16281
2009/5/1 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Current severity levels are perfect for server applications where everything is simply about functionality working or not working. However, the overwhelming majority of windows applications in general, and those being ported through wine in particular are GUI-based, end-user applications. When it comes to these kinds of applications, in front of which actual people sit for hours on end doing actual work, other factors come into play.
Wine is meant to support _ALL_ windows applications. It doesn't give priority to 'server' or 'desktop' applications (there is no difference, really), but instead tries to make all of them work. I have a feeling that by 'server' applications, you meant to say 'old crappy business applications', or something similar, which makes a bit of sense. Those applications are simple, and don't depend on a large portion of the Win32 API, which makes them easy to get running. While getting Photoshop to run perfectly would be great (and _a lot_ of work has been done for this, by Dan K filing a ton of bugs, and Google funding a lot of bug fixing (http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/02/google-sponsors-wine-improveme...). A lot of that helped CS 3/4, as well, but Adobe also added more complexity, so they don't work quite as well. Remember, Wine is open source, and most developers aren't paid. If you've got a bug that drives you crazy, study the source (http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/), and submit a patch (http://wiki.winehq.org/SubmittingPatches). -- -Austin
Wine is meant to support _ALL_ windows applications. It doesn't give priority to 'server' or 'desktop' applications (there is no difference, really), but instead tries to make all of them work.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about server applikations per se, but that the severity levels would be perfect for a server application, hence skewing the priorities away from GUI and other, more "soft", user experience issues. I am not specifically talking about Photoshop, either. I am talking about all GUI-centered applications. Yes, I read about that, huge kudos to Google for still being benevolent(and Dan of course). But. Listen. I am not here to try and get Photoshop CS 4 fixed, that's already done, it works great for me. It's just that I have some ideas on what I would think would be simple but effective changes of the bug reporting and don't give up easily. :-) //Nicklas
2009/5/2 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Wine is meant to support _ALL_ windows applications. It doesn't give priority to 'server' or 'desktop' applications (there is no difference, really), but instead tries to make all of them work.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about server applikations per se, but that the severity levels would be perfect for a server application, hence skewing the priorities away from GUI and other, more "soft", user experience issues.
I'm curious what non-gui applications you're talking about in regards to wine. -- -Austin
Not applications, issues. My point is that user experience issues gets a lower severity than they should. Let's take photoshop CS 4 with two old but relevant actual issues as an example. 1. There is a problem with the text tool functionality, it did not work. Everything else works, though. 2. There are serious graphics problems, huge artifacts, the entire application is almost unworkable under Gnome. With the current severity levels(without common sense), example 1 gets higher priority, which I think is wrong. //Nicklas PS. Yes I know the actual issue turned out to be a configuration thing. But that's not the point. DS. -----Original Message----- From: Austin English [mailto:austinenglish(a)gmail.com] Sent: Sat 2009-05-02 20:56 To: Nicklas Börjesson Cc: wine-devel(a)winehq.org Subject: Re: Severity levels 2009/5/2 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Wine is meant to support _ALL_ windows applications. It doesn't give priority to 'server' or 'desktop' applications (there is no difference, really), but instead tries to make all of them work.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about server applikations per se, but that the severity levels would be perfect for a server application, hence skewing the priorities away from GUI and other, more "soft", user experience issues.
I'm curious what non-gui applications you're talking about in regards to wine. -- -Austin
2009/5/2 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Not applications, issues. My point is that user experience issues gets a lower severity than they should. Let's take photoshop CS 4 with two old but relevant actual issues as an example. 1. There is a problem with the text tool functionality, it did not work. Everything else works, though. 2. There are serious graphics problems, huge artifacts, the entire application is almost unworkable under Gnome.
With the current severity levels(without common sense), example 1 gets higher priority, which I think is wrong.
//Nicklas
PS. Yes I know the actual issue turned out to be a configuration thing. But that's not the point. DS.
The problem is, however, that many of those problems only break an application or two. What is a blocker for Photoshop isn't a blocker for World of Warcraft or Microsoft Office, for example. Please bottom post on wine mailing lists. -- -Austin
The problem is, however, that many of those problems only break an application or two. What is a blocker for Photoshop isn't a blocker for World of Warcraft or Microsoft Office, for example.
You mean because Photoshop often use the more obscure parts of the APIs? Otherwise bugs in GUI shouldn't be less contagious than other kinds. Unless one regards UE issues as less severe, that is... :-) Anyway, I fail to see how this connects to the severity level discussion?
Please bottom post on wine mailing lists.
Yep. But I was top posted earlier so I got confused. Also I am in a crappy exchange web mail client.. I hope you managed to read this post better. //Nicklas
I really didn't think this one deserved even my comment, but here goes. 2009/5/3 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
2009/5/1 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Current severity levels are perfect for server applications where everything is simply about functionality working or not working. However, the overwhelming majority of windows applications in general, and those being ported through wine in particular are GUI-based, end-user applications. When it comes to these kinds of applications, in front of which actual people sit for hours on end doing actual work, other factors come into play.
Wine is meant to support _ALL_ windows applications. It doesn't give priority to 'server' or 'desktop' applications (there is no difference, really), but instead tries to make all of them work.
I have a feeling that by 'server' applications, you meant to say 'old crappy business applications', or something similar, which makes a bit of sense. Those applications are simple, and don't depend on a large portion of the Win32 API, which makes them easy to get running.
I have a feeling that by "server" applications, he meant stuff that's not Wine. For me, games and regular applications running in Wine is still "simply about functionality working or not working". It's still a matter of determining how much a bug affects the functionality, whether that's gameplay, graphics, HID responsiveness ... 2009/5/3 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
2009/5/2 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Not applications, issues. My point is that user experience issues gets a lower severity than they should. Let's take photoshop CS 4 with two old but relevant actual issues as an example. 1. There is a problem with the text tool functionality, it did not work. Everything else works, though.
"Text tool" is one tool out of many. "Minor" loss of functionality. "Normal" at worst.
2. There are serious graphics problems, huge artifacts, the entire application is almost unworkable under Gnome.
If it's restricted to a small number of applications, "Normal". If it's a reasonably large number, "Major". Regardless of what you might think, it's not JUST a "UI glitch" if it seriously impairs functionality. Even the use of the word "serious" in your description implies it's more than a "Minor" bug.
With the current severity levels(without common sense), example 1 gets higher priority, which I think is wrong.
Without common sense, all bug reports would be "Enhancement" requests, or "Critical", depending on how arrogant the reporter is. Common sense must *always* be applied.
The problem is, however, that many of those problems only break an application or two. What is a blocker for Photoshop isn't a blocker for World of Warcraft or Microsoft Office, for example.
Hence the bug is "Normal" and not "Major".
Please bottom post on wine mailing lists.
Oh, and use "Reply to all" so you stop just hitting Austin with responses! 2009/5/3 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 21:08:23 +0200 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se> wrote:
Non-technical? Posting on and following the wine-devel list? Severity levels perfectly clear? I must say, you've got some serious credibility issues.. :-)
Rosanne is an AppDB admin. What contribution have you made to Wine? Out of you and her, I don't think her credibility can be called in to question. And before you ask, I'm also an AppDB admin, I package the Debian packages for WineHQ, and have had a patch committed to Wine. I'll even send you the git revision code if you can't find it! :D Note that like Rosanne, even when I was a newbie submitting bug reports, I understood the severity levels because I read the descriptions. The descriptions are fine as is, with the possible exception of "Blocker" (people submit "Blocker" bugs for "Normal" issues because it blocks the thing that they're doing).
Ok..you seem to have misunderstood the tone in my mail.
Without common sense, all bug reports would be "Enhancement" requests, or "Critical", depending on how arrogant the reporter is. Common sense must *always* be applied.
I should be needed to be applied only to the least possible amount. One should never have to think for no reason. The more "common sense" that have to be applied to make something work, the less something works by itself. Of course, you can't completely do away with common sense. I said "without common sense" to point out the problems. And, well, some have less common sense. Or a different kind. Or are just tired, stressed out or something else. So, the less common sense needed, the better, IMO. My other point is that reporters are like to become less technical.
Oh, and use "Reply to all" so you stop just hitting Austin with responses!
Huh? The mailing list is cc:d, Isn't that enough? I mean, it looks on you mail you mailed me and cc:d? Doesn't the mailing list propagate messages if it is only cc:d? Have I misunderstood something? In that case I am sorry.
Rosanne is an AppDB admin. What contribution have you made to Wine? Out of you and her, I don't think her credibility can be called in to question. And before you ask, I'm also an AppDB admin, I package the Debian packages for WineHQ, and have had a patch committed to Wine. I'll even send you the git revision code if you can't find it! :D
Note that like Rosanne, even when I was a newbie submitting bug reports, I understood the severity levels because I read the descriptions. The descriptions are fine as is, with the possible exception of "Blocker" (people submit "Blocker" bugs for "Normal" issues because it blocks the thing that they're doing).
It's seems you missed the ":-)". I put in the end of the sentence on credibility. It was a joke and she seems to have took it that way, since she joked back. With regards to the severity levels, to me, none of them means what one would think they do intuitively. //Nicklas PS. I am sorry if I have broken the rules of this list, but I thought I followed them. I hope you don't let this detract from my arguments. DS.
2009/5/3 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
Ok..you seem to have misunderstood the tone in my mail.
Without common sense, all bug reports would be "Enhancement" requests, or "Critical", depending on how arrogant the reporter is. Common sense must *always* be applied.
I should be needed to be applied only to the least possible amount. One should never have to think for no reason. The more "common sense" that have to be applied to make something work, the less something works by itself. Of course, you can't completely do away with common sense. I said "without common sense" to point out the problems. And, well, some have less common sense. Or a different kind. Or are just tired, stressed out or something else. So, the less common sense needed, the better, IMO. My other point is that reporters are like to become less technical.
Oh, and use "Reply to all" so you stop just hitting Austin with responses!
Huh? The mailing list is cc:d, Isn't that enough? I mean, it looks on you mail you mailed me and cc:d? Doesn't the mailing list propagate messages if it is only cc:d? Have I misunderstood something? In that case I am sorry.
My apologies. I received Austin's responses before receiving your original emails.
Rosanne is an AppDB admin. What contribution have you made to Wine? Out of you and her, I don't think her credibility can be called in to question. And before you ask, I'm also an AppDB admin, I package the Debian packages for WineHQ, and have had a patch committed to Wine. I'll even send you the git revision code if you can't find it! :D
Note that like Rosanne, even when I was a newbie submitting bug reports, I understood the severity levels because I read the descriptions. The descriptions are fine as is, with the possible exception of "Blocker" (people submit "Blocker" bugs for "Normal" issues because it blocks the thing that they're doing).
It's seems you missed the ":-)". I put in the end of the sentence on credibility. It was a joke and she seems to have took it that way, since she joked back. With regards to the severity levels, to me, none of them means what one would think they do intuitively.
I disagree. When first introduced to them, I found the severity levels to be suitably vague to make me read the definitions. Once I read them, it was clear to me what each level means. Either way, severity levels can be changed, and often are due to user responses on the bugs. But bear in mind the severity levels are there to help the developers categorise the bugs, and they are not there to provide feedback to the average non-coding user.
I disagree. When first introduced to them, I found the severity levels to be suitably vague to make me read the definitions. Once I read them, it was clear to me what each level means.
Suitably? Do you mean that the severity levels are the way they are to make people read their definitions? :-) Jokes aside, that's exactly what I don't want. I want them to be even more vague(Low, Medium, High and Critical) and without any definitions except for the highest level. This way, one will elicit more how the user perceives the overall impact of the bug, without having to shoehorn them into some level that only partly matches their impression. Done with the help of the users indisputable "common sense", of course. Also, the priority flag should not be visible to the user by default, it should be a strangely named setting somewhere in the user preferences.
But bear in mind the severity levels are there to help the developers categorise the bugs, and they are not there to provide feedback to the average non-coding user. For categorisation, there could be a separate category flag if the "component" categorisation + priority wouldn't suffice.
Whatever. There are many ways to do it. But currently, the users' impression of the problem get lost and/or skewed. //Nicklas
2009/5/3 Nicklas Börjesson <Nicklas.Borjesson(a)ws.se>:
I disagree. When first introduced to them, I found the severity levels to be suitably vague to make me read the definitions. Once I read them, it was clear to me what each level means.
Suitably? Do you mean that the severity levels are the way they are to make people read their definitions? :-)
Jokes aside, that's exactly what I don't want. I want them to be even more vague(Low, Medium, High and Critical) and without any definitions except for the highest level. This way, one will elicit more how the user perceives the overall impact of the bug, without having to shoehorn them into some level that only partly matches their impression. Done with the help of the users indisputable "common sense", of course.
So you suggest making the severity ratings meaningless to anyone but ... well, you don't actually mention anyone knowing what they *really* mean, but I assume an exclusive clique of developers or bugzilla admins? Users have different opinions on what level of bug they encounter depending on what *task* they're trying to perform, which is not particularly useful to developers who need strict reproducability.
Also, the priority flag should not be visible to the user by default, it should be a strangely named setting somewhere in the user preferences.
It already is a strangely named setting, but the user preferences is far from the right place for it. It still has to be on a per-bug level, and although it may not be the most useful option on bugs it is still used by developers in-the-know, so maybe an additional message that says "Don't change the priority setting unless you know exactly what you're doing"? It's academic anyway, as the priority can be appropriately adjusted later.
But bear in mind the severity levels are there to help the developers categorise the bugs, and they are not there to provide feedback to the average non-coding user. For categorisation, there could be a separate category flag if the "component" categorisation + priority wouldn't suffice.
There already is a separate category flag. It's called "severity" and it indicates roughly the amount of *functionality* lost due to the bug. "Priority" does not indicate the severity of a bug; a bug may have low priority due to limitations outside of Wine (such as some blocker bugs for copy-protection systems which can't be supported in Wine).
Whatever. There are many ways to do it. But currently, the users' impression of the problem get lost and/or skewed.
You're not going to like this, but users don't matter quite *that* much on bugzilla. The bug tracker is a developer's tool, and although users are essential to the process (submitting bugs and new information on request), it should be designed as a developer's tool. A user's impression of their problem is irrelevant to the hard data they can provide about lost or missing functionality.
So you suggest making the severity ratings meaningless to anyone but ... well, you don't actually mention anyone knowing what they *really* mean, but I assume an exclusive clique of developers or bugzilla admins? Users have different opinions on what level of bug they encounter depending on what *task* they're trying to perform, which is not particularly useful to developers who need strict reproducability.
No, I mean that the actual meaning of the words "low", "medium", "high" and "Critical" will suffice. I think most people have a fair understanding what "medium" and "critical" means. This is not meaningless at all, to trying to clarify these levels is quite pointless though. Yes, some people tend to exaggerate their issues, but that's just the way it is. And to my experience, they are few. Most actually don't exaggerate as much. To them, the situation IS critical, bordering on panic. Rather, thinking that their users are exaggerating is a way for developers to not let reality come to close. Hell, I do it myself right now. :-) I don't see how the reproducibility connects to the severity level? Regarding the priority flag..i was referring to it's visibility, not its state.
There already is a separate category flag. It's called "severity" and it indicates roughly the amount of *functionality* lost due to the bug. "Priority" does not indicate the severity of a bug; a bug may have low priority due to limitations outside of Wine (such as some blocker bugs for copy-protection systems which can't be supported in Wine).
My point is that there should be no need for that flag. Let the users have it as input, and let the developers use component+priority.
You're not going to like this, but users don't matter quite *that* much on bugzilla. The bug tracker is a developer's tool, and although users are essential to the process (submitting bugs and new information on request), it should be designed as a developer's tool. A user's impression of their problem is irrelevant to the hard data they can provide about lost or missing functionality.
You are right. I don't like it. Especially because the bug tracker is the entire projects tool, not only the developers. I this matter can only compare with my own professional(commercial) experience and there, the ones submitting bugs has a *lot* to say, since they won't submit bugs unless they are critical if we don't present them with a smooth interface. Hmm..only critical bugs..now where have i heard about that..? :-) //Nicklas
participants (10)
-
Austin English -
Ben Klein -
IneedAname -
James McKenzie -
Jerome Leclanche -
Ken Sharp -
Mike Kaplinskiy -
Nicklas Börjesson -
Paul TBBle Hampson -
Rosanne DiMesio