Important bugs list

Kent James kent at
Mon Sep 24 06:47:48 UTC 2012

On 9/23/2012 9:46 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> Since normal is the default, and given that severity has in the past 
> been indicated to people as being effectively meaningless, I think 
> excluding normal bugs from consideration is the wrong thing to do in 
> the long term, although I appreciate that you did it for your own sanity. 
One way to get the severity field set reliably is to actually start 
using it for something like deciding when to put bugs on The List.

 From my perspective, one of the most important things we are trying to 
do here is to empower the QA people to see that their work actually 
affects what bugs get attention. That is more important than deciding 
which of many candidate bugs is exactly the right bug for The List.

Another thing that I would like to be able to see is some sort of 
metrics about the QA/bug fixing process wrt The List. So we should be 
able to measure eventually the mean time to fix of a bug that is put on 
The List.


More information about the tb-planning mailing list