From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAACE013A5; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2012 13:22:48 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="119250268" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.7.199.162]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2012 13:22:48 -0700 Message-ID: <4F67956E.4090905@intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:22:06 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <90741FE9B50D654690EB940EDB456C8E0908E7@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1332152778.9740.3.camel@ted> <90741FE9B50D654690EB940EDB456C8E091117@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4F676946.6000609@intel.com> <1332188291.9740.71.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1332188291.9740.71.camel@ted> 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 20:22:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/19/2012 01:18 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > 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. Last I spoke with Michael (added to CC), the plan was to assign these to a default "Yocto Janitor" id. Unfortunately, we don't have a way to set this up for automatic assignment like we do for "component owner", as Janitor bugs are currently identified by severity. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel