Repost of new bugzilla tool idea
Will Woods
wwoods at redhat.com
Sun Mar 9 17:41:35 UTC 2008
On Mar 9, 2008, at 11:51 AM, John Summerfield wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:24:09 -0800 (PST), Arne Chr. Jorgensen wrote:
>>
>> While I agree that bugzilla suffers from the size of the data and
>> from the
>> number of tickets, I think you have false expectations. Those
>> tickets in
>> bugzilla, that are not closed for years, are there because there is
>> no
>> end of tickets, which are handled with a higher priority.
>>
>
> Speaking of which, I'm a little puzzled at "priority." I'd have
> thought that a breakage that has the potential to make a release
> (I'm thinking of a kernel bug I reported recently and have mentioned
> here, and which _might_ be a mkinitrd bug) would have a high priority.
We specifically ignore priority on bugs right now. Bug submitters can
set the field however they like, and everyone thinks *their* bug is
the most important. Until that field is locked so only the assignee
and triagers can modify it, it's not useful.
If a bug is *actually* high-priority it'll get added to one of the bug
trackers by the triage team.
-w
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list