[Scribus] bug severity

[avox]

Marc Sabatella wrote:
> 
> I've reported a couple of bugs lately, and am wondering if there are 
> standards regarding the "severity" field.  I know everyone always thinks
> the 
> bugs that affect *them* are more serious than others might think, and I 
> don't take it *personally* that one of my reports was downgraded in 
> severity.  But this does suggest that if there are standards for
> determining 
> severity, it would be great if they were public and perhaps open for 
> critique.  And if there are not, I think there should be.
> 

No, we don't have  a fixed standard for that, just some rules-of-thumb.

"feature" is reserved for feature requests (in contrast to bug reports)
"crash" is self-expalnatory
"block" is an issue that must be fixed before the next release. We use
meta-issues
of that category to collect all issues we want to have fixed in the next
release.

The remaining categories are:
"trivial"
"text"
"tweak"
"minor"
"major"

The default is "minor".

IIRC "text" is used for spelling erros and the like.
IMHO one of "tweak" or "trivial" is superflous.

I guess we choose the severity mainly based on how visible a bug is, that
means how many users might run into it. On that scale your bug would
classify as "minor" since registration marks aren't used by all users.

OTOH we treat any bug that causes a job to fail at the print service bureau
as "major", "crash" or "block".
Following your explanation, I agree that your bug should be treated as this.
Maybe we should introduce a new category for this kind of bugs, eg.
"jobfailure" or something like that.

/Andreas
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/bug-severity-tf4783264.html#a13685087
Sent from the Scribus mailing list archive at Nabble.com.