Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 03:51:42 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 240774] security/py-fido2: Update to 0.7.1 Message-ID: <bug-240774-21822-cQdgzSYNZN@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-240774-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-240774-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D240774 --- Comment #12 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Michael Gmelin from comment #11) Totally, it's a hard problem, with context, industry, organization, product= and team specific considerations, such that most just do the 'gut feel' on and never measure its effectiveness/value. That the vast majority don't do it well doesn't mean FreeBSD shouldn't or can't, and that's where I start from. And yeh, importance to you/others is one way, which has its pro's (user-value/pain orientedness) and con's (subjective, hard to map to priori= ty consistently/objectively in the project context) That makes me think of a few other guidelines that may help isolate a good schema: - Nothing says initial values must be precise/correct. They can be adjusted. - Assume we (the project, developers) can and do triage, we are best placed= to adjust - Since they're initially reporter set, semantic value/meaning to the repor= ter is important, otherwise why show them at all. We could change to "internal = only prioritization"), but we'd lose the benefit of signal from reporters on severity which assists searching/browsing --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-240774-21822-cQdgzSYNZN>