[Scribus] bug severity

[Gregory Pittman]

avox wrote:
>
> 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.
>   
I have a hard time with this. I submitted a bug for the fact that text 
flowing around Bounding Boxes doesn't work at all, so it was a severe 
bug from that perspective, even though it doesn't otherwise impair Scribus.

Greg