Important bugs list

Kent James kent at caspia.com
Fri Sep 21 23:07:17 UTC 2012


If you can just merge the 10 bugs from the papercuts list into this one, 
then I think we can have a new official list.

:rkent

On 9/21/2012 3:23 PM, Wayne Mery (d531) wrote:
> The QA breakout at mozcamp [1] discussed making a list of high value, 
> i.e. "most important" bugs list for developer attention and action. 
> This is to be a small, selective set of bugs, culled from a larger set 
> of bugs, to serve as a managable "grab bag" for developers.  The idea 
> is, as bugs on the list are fixed they are removed from the list, and 
> other bugs added to the list. ("important bugs" is not an official 
> name - so let's not haggle yet over names)
>
> This is not a list to make everyone happy; not every user will see one 
> of their issues here. The goal is to tackle a focused list, and add to 
> and subtract from it as progress is made.
>
> Per the meeting, there are 4 dimensions to categorizing bugs for this 
> list:
> 1. How many people are likely to be affected
> 2. How serious is the effect when it occurs (workaround? consequences)
>    [severity as defined by bugzilla]
> 3. How much effort to fix this bug?
> 4. How reproducible it is
>
> To summarize what I think is the current situation
>
> #1 is going to be a judgment call by QA, in come cases informed by 
> feedback from support forum - feedback which we currently don't have 
> except the unweighted [gs] whiteboard item
>
> #2 we know from bugzilla - unless the severity setting is incorrect. 
> When you touch a bug you should check the severity and change it if 
> you feel it isn't accurate. Ref: 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity
>
> #3 can be judged by developers, and for some bugs probably by trigers. 
> To what extent it affects whether a bug gets on the list remains to be 
> seen.
>
> #4 well, presumably every confirmed bug is reproducible to some 
> extent. But we know this is not true. If we continue to feel this is 
> an important factor to a bug being on the list, know that it will 
> require *signficant* manpower to accomplish as it will require 
> reasessing a high percentage of our bugs.
>
> It will be weeks I think until we are in a position to create a list 
> based on the above 4 elements and a process to go with it. And even 
> then it will likely be iterative - starting with an imperfect process 
> that doesn't cover all the criteria and working toward a better 
> process, that may or may not cover all of the criteria.
>
> So I have created an interim ~top 30 list: http://tinyurl.com/bq5xcxf
>
> Most of these bugs are deserving of attention for multiple reasons. I 
> used criteria #1 and #2. For #3 I have merely eyeballed and made a 
> best judgement that the bug (or it's blockers in the case of a meta) 
> probably doesn't require more than a weeks time or major architecutral 
> changes. I have not attempted to assess "reproducibility" in this 
> cut.  I created this list a week ago when I was still sick, so I don't 
> claim it is unbiased or proper in any particular way - it is my 
> interpretation of a top 30.  But I will welcome private email as to 
> the suitability of any bug to be on the list - and summarize later for 
> the group so it can be used to improve whatever future process we put 
> in place.
>
> For my own sanity I excluded large numbers of bugs, like address book 
> and filters because the former will hopefully be revamped in the next 
> year/in our lifetime, and the later because it has already been 
> heavily triaged in recent months due to the efforts of aceman and 
> others. I excluded international, build, security either because I 
> have no experience in those areas or because the area is highly 
> specialized and likely not of interest to the average developer. I 
> excluded severity=minor and severity=normal.
>
> Many are dataloss or datalossy. Some are assigned and/or well in 
> progress. Many are not.
>
> - I heavily favored bugs that have recent activity (on a sliding 
> scale), let's say the last 120 days.
> - I have not yet examined most hang and performance bugs - but I am 
> pretty sure we have no hang bugs that are pervasive amongst users
> - I did not use prior bug lists (for example paper-cuts or various 
> wanted flags) to either include or exclude any bugs.
>
> Use in good health.
>
> [1] 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/tb-planning/nq3K1pIGTZg/RblSSfCbK7gJ
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning




More information about the tb-planning mailing list