From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B990CE013A3 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2JKIIRw000905; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:18:18 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00819-01; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:18:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2JKIAqw000897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:18:12 GMT Message-ID: <1332188291.9740.71.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Darren Hart Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:18:11 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4F676946.6000609@intel.com> References: <90741FE9B50D654690EB940EDB456C8E0908E7@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1332152778.9740.3.camel@ted> <90741FE9B50D654690EB940EDB456C8E091117@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4F676946.6000609@intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: Yocto weekly bug trend charts -- WW11 X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:18:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 10:13 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On 03/19/2012 09:18 AM, Stewart, David C wrote: > >> From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto- > >> bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Xu, Jiajun > >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:33 AM > > >> BTW, when I check the open bug data, I find that a new variable is introduced > >> with new bugzilla for field "severity" - janitors. We do not include the bugs > >> marked as janitors in "Yocto Weekly Open bug Trend(Severity)". My thinking > >> is that janitors is similar with enhancement. We could treat it as > >> enhancement(with weight value "0"), or if we think it should be included into > >> WDD, we could set a weight value for it. How do you think of it? > >> Fortunately, we only have 4 bugs marked as janitors, and they are all new > >> reported last week. We could simply update the bug trend once we make the > >> decision. > > > > I suggest we make the janitor severity the same as low in the WDD calculation. > > > > I don't know what "low" would map to. The key says: > > "The weight we use for each severity: Critical:10, Major:7, Normal:5, > Minor:3, Enhancement:0 " > > In my view, Janitors should be marked the same as Enhancement, 0. If a > bug is important enough to track and impact release, it shouldn't be a > janitors bug, which by definition are intended to sit in a pool for > new-comers and irregular contributors to pick up. I did talk briefly with Dave earlier and it was hard to decide whether these were minor or enhancement in nature. Enhancements are about adding new functionality, bugs of whatever severity are about issues in existing features. Janitor class issues could be in either category so you can argue this both ways from that perspective. Did we end up deciding to have a janitor user to assign these too in the end or are they going to remain with various people until assigned? If the latter, I'd hate to see the WDD being skewed against people due to high numbers of janitor bugs so that might sway my argument. Cheers, Richard