From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 27 20: 0:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF1737B401 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wwweasel.geeksrus.net (wwweasel.geeksrus.net [64.8.210.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6387943E6A for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:00:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alane@wwweasel.geeksrus.net) Received: from wwweasel.geeksrus.net (alane@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wwweasel.geeksrus.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g8S2xq50037047; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:59:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from alane@wwweasel.geeksrus.net) Received: (from alane@localhost) by wwweasel.geeksrus.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g8S2xqi0037046; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:59:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from alane) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:59:51 -0400 From: AlanE To: Kris Kennaway Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Meaning of severity/priority for ports PRs Message-ID: <20020928025951.GA36989@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> Reply-To: alane@geeksrus.net References: <20020928024422.GC66227@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020928024422.GC66227@xor.obsecurity.org> X-message-flag: Magic 8-Ball says "Outlook not so good." I'll ask it about Exchange next. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 07:44:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:39:07PM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >> So does a bug that prevents the games/diddle program from running >> get a severity/priority of critical/high (from the port's viewpoint) >> or non-critical/low (from the viewpoints of the OS or the OS >> developers or most porters)? > >Unfortunately severity and priority are not very meaningful because >most people regularly abuse them (IT IS A CRITICAL BUG THAT THERE IS A >TYPO IN THIS COMMENT). I don't usually pay attention to them myself. FWIW, I usually use 'critical' for something that stops a build, 'serious' for bugs that impair functionality or screw up deinstallation, and non-critical for things like doc errors. I use priority high for things that are depended upon by lots of other things, or things that are used by a lot of people. I use priority medium for most other things, and priority low for cosmetic errors. These get tempered by how close to a freeze or release we are, especially escalating serious to critical for nasty bugs that need to get stomped before a release gets cut (or other stuff that's just plain embarassing to us to have go out on a bunch of boxed CD sets). For example, it would be nice if 'portsdb -U' ran quietly - that is, whatever is making it spew got fixed - but I'd put it at at non-serious and low priority because it doesn't seem to actually affect the usage of the system, and you can always redirect it to /dev/null. Just my $0.015 (not even worth 2 cents). -- Alan Eldridge Unix/C(++) IT Pro, 20 yrs, seeking new employment. (http://wwweasel.geeksrus.net/~alane/resume.txt) KDE, KDE-FreeBSD Teams (http://www.kde.org, http://freebsd.kde.org/) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message