On 14/10/2016 11:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 19:33 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
>> That's not the intent of the fields as I understand them. 'severity'
is
>> supposed to represent how bad the bug is, whereas 'priority' is
>> supposed to represent how important it is to get it fixed compared to
>> other bugs in the same component. They're obviously related, but not
>> the same, and it's not "severity is the reporter's opinion, priority
is
>> the maintainers' opinion", no.
> My understanding is based on ye olde services plan:
>
> "Bugzilla Severity and Priority
>
> When filing a new bug report, or actioning an existing bug, it is
> important to bear in mind that, while both the 'Severity' and
'Priority'
> fields are required; 'Priority' is an internal weighting and
'Severity'
> is customer weighting. This distinction can cause confusion if not
> consistant."
>
> This is only significant in that it may have impacted the way they are
> coded on BRC.
>
>> I think you might be right that we allow the bug reporter to set
>> 'severity', though.
> BRC carries a custom patch to restrict priority to a group besides
> editbugs group (the setpriority group), AFAICT there is no code that
> allows similar restriction of the severity field.
Ah, interesting. I don't really have any particular source for my
understanding of them, it's just something I've been carrying around
for a while, I guess. However, Fedora definitely does not handle bugs
the same as RHEL, so we're not necessarily *bound* by that
definition...but we could use it if we liked.
Hell no, but if a restriction on who can set severity was wanted we'd
have to add a patch for that. Whereas for priority all you'd need is
another BZ group and just switch the group inheritance.
Not that I think either of those fields are good for marking something
as a blocker for the distribution, a blocker flag would be more useful
for that IMO.
Cheers, Jeff.