From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B085CE013A3 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="122643004" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.15.160]) ([10.255.15.160]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4F679FB2.4000303@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:05:54 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Hart 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> <4F67956E.4090905@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4F67956E.4090905@intel.com> 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 21:05:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/19/2012 01:22 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > 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. > We can just take care of this during bug creation or triage manually. Sau!