Re: Suggested Prioritization For Triaging

Hi,

I agree with Joren. I know that the earlier you solve a bug (in master
instead of in 3.6 versions for example), the better/more simple it is (no
need to cherry-pick, etc.). But, for some people the highest priority may
be:
- unconfirmed regressions (because it's very frustrating to have been
advised to use a newer version, see a lot of improvements, bugs solved, etc.
in this new one and stumble on a regression bug)
- unconfirmed blockers (of course I talk about "real" blocker according to
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria#Blocker_Bug_Definition)
- unconfirmed for Base/Writer/... according what you use daily/prefer/know
better...
- very old unconfirmed (because the reporter may think nobody takes care of
his/her bug and probably won't submit others if he/she finds new ones)
- ...
In brief, it's a matter of personal opinion (which can change with the time)

I know that you just meant suggestions but it could be relevant to let
anyone triaging the bug he/she wants ; it's more incitative and you're more
"efficient" when you work on something you decided.
That's why I would remove this part.

For the rest, I didn't know this page and think it's is a good and useful
following to other pages like these:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BSA/BugReport_Details
to bring people go a step further in QA.

Julien



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Suggested-Prioritization-For-Triaging-tp4058346p4058416.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.