From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 20 11:40:57 2004 Return-Path: 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 B0FEE16A4CF for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tinker.exit.com (tinker.exit.com [206.223.0.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670FC43D1D for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from realtime.exit.com (realtime [206.223.0.5]) by tinker.exit.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4KIeuBP004743; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frank@exit.com) Received: from realtime.exit.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by realtime.exit.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4KIet5J073770; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frank@realtime.exit.com) Received: (from frank@localhost) by realtime.exit.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i4KIetGQ073769; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from frank) From: Frank Mayhar Message-Id: <200405201840.i4KIetGQ073769@realtime.exit.com> In-Reply-To: To: Mark Linimon Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Copyright0: Copyright 2004 Frank Mayhar. All Rights Reserved. X-Copyright1: Permission granted for electronic reproduction as Usenet News or email only. X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99f (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Florent Thoumie Subject: Re: ports/66740: [MAINTAINER] security/f-prot-sig: update to 20040517 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: frank@exit.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 18:40:57 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: > The last time we discussed these fields I was of the opinion that > we should try to get people to use these fields correctly. But > having seen that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of PRs > with all manner of settings of these fields, I now have changed > my mind and think these fields should just be dropped. In general, "severity" and "priority" fields are next-to-useless. The customer always wants the problem fixed yesterday, so tends to give everything a high severity, while they have very little context to know what the priority should be. I've only ever found such fields useful when they are only visible internally and are used as guides by the people responsible for the PRs. My $.02, from my _extensive_ experience in this area. :-) -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/