[tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[David Goulet]

Hello tor-dev!

While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:

blocker critical major normal minor trivial

Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:

1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.

2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:

blocker --> Immediate
criticial --> Very High
major --> High
normal --> Medium
minor --> Low
trivial --> Very Low

3) World trac domination!

This could get confusing for some tickets after that but at least we can
transition towards using the Severity field from now on.

Anyone object or think it's a bad bad idea?

This is very little work for lots of benefits so I don't want to get
into a massive reorg. or bike-shedding the naming convention. I would be
open though to drop the "Very [High|Low]" field but that could make some
tickets with less semantic.

I'll let that sync for some days before doing anything. Let's not wait
anymore and take back our Trac system! Freedom!

Cheers!
David


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Griffin]

  This is a good proposal.  Some bugs are higher-priority and affect
lots of users, but are really quite trivial and don't affect user
security (such as CSS bugs).

  I'd add another trac change:
4) hide "milestone" field in query results, replace with "severity"

  That way, we can quickly see both severity and priority when looking
at large lists of bugs that we might want to patch.

best,
Griffin


David Goulet wrote:
> Hello tor-dev!
> 
> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
> 
> blocker critical major normal minor trivial
> 
> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
> 
> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
> 
> 2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:
> 
> blocker --> Immediate
> criticial --> Very High
> major --> High
> normal --> Medium
> minor --> Low
> trivial --> Very Low
> 
> 3) World trac domination!
> 
> This could get confusing for some tickets after that but at least we can
> transition towards using the Severity field from now on.
> 
> Anyone object or think it's a bad bad idea?
> 
> This is very little work for lots of benefits so I don't want to get
> into a massive reorg. or bike-shedding the naming convention. I would be
> open though to drop the "Very [High|Low]" field but that could make some
> tickets with less semantic.


___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Nick Mathewson]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:56 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
> Hello tor-dev!
>
> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
>
> blocker critical major normal minor trivial
>
> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
>
> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
>
> 2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:
>
> blocker --> Immediate
> criticial --> Very High
> major --> High
> normal --> Medium
> minor --> Low
> trivial --> Very Low
>
> 3) World trac domination!
>
> This could get confusing for some tickets after that but at least we can
> transition towards using the Severity field from now on.
>
> Anyone object or think it's a bad bad idea?
>
> This is very little work for lots of benefits so I don't want to get
> into a massive reorg. or bike-shedding the naming convention. I would be
> open though to drop the "Very [High|Low]" field but that could make some
> tickets with less semantic.
>
> I'll let that sync for some days before doing anything. Let's not wait
> anymore and take back our Trac system! Freedom!

+1 on this.

Also, I suggest that it might be clever to have it so that only
members of GRP_devel can set priorities.
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor]

> On 8 Oct 2015, at 05:01, Nick Mathewson  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:56 AM, David Goulet  > wrote:
>> Hello tor-dev!
>> 
>> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
>> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
>> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
>> 
>>blocker critical major normal minor trivial
>> 
>> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
>> 
>> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
>> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
>> 
>> 2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:
>> 
>>blocker --> Immediate
>>criticial --> Very High
>>major --> High
>>normal --> Medium
>>minor --> Low
>>trivial --> Very Low
>> 
>> 3) World trac domination!
>> 
>> This could get confusing for some tickets after that but at least we can
>> transition towards using the Severity field from now on.
>> 
>> Anyone object or think it's a bad bad idea?
>> 
>> This is very little work for lots of benefits so I don't want to get
>> into a massive reorg. or bike-shedding the naming convention. I would be
>> open though to drop the "Very [High|Low]" field but that could make some
>> tickets with less semantic.
>> 
>> I'll let that sync for some days before doing anything. Let's not wait
>> anymore and take back our Trac system! Freedom!
> 
> +1 on this.
> 
> Also, I suggest that it might be clever to have it so that only
> members of GRP_devel can set priorities.

That would be clever, as long as enough people are in GRP_devel.
(And by that, I mean, “pick me!")

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Hugo Maxwell Connery]

Hi,

Yes, renaming to a more meaningful thing is great.

Also, if only some group can grade entries, then it is 
wise to have an 'uncategorised' category which appears
in a grading list towards, but not at the bottom.

Field experience in these systems tells me that people
get annoyed at being auto-classified at the bottom.

I advise putting 'uncategorised' at 5 of 7 or something similar.

e.g Critical,  High Import, Import, Medium, Uncategorised, Small, Trivial.

This also helps to raise the visibility of Uncategorised items;
i.e Categorise them :)

Regards,  Hugo
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Nick Mathewson]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
 wrote:
>
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 05:01, Nick Mathewson  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:56 AM, David Goulet  wrote:
>
> Hello tor-dev!
>
> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
>
>blocker critical major normal minor trivial
>
> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
>
> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
>
> 2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:
>
>blocker --> Immediate
>criticial --> Very High
>major --> High
>normal --> Medium
>minor --> Low
>trivial --> Very Low
>
> 3) World trac domination!
>
> This could get confusing for some tickets after that but at least we can
> transition towards using the Severity field from now on.
>
> Anyone object or think it's a bad bad idea?
>
> This is very little work for lots of benefits so I don't want to get
> into a massive reorg. or bike-shedding the naming convention. I would be
> open though to drop the "Very [High|Low]" field but that could make some
> tickets with less semantic.
>
> I'll let that sync for some days before doing anything. Let's not wait
> anymore and take back our Trac system! Freedom!
>
>
> +1 on this.
>
> Also, I suggest that it might be clever to have it so that only
> members of GRP_devel can set priorities.
>
>
> That would be clever, as long as enough people are in GRP_devel.
> (And by that, I mean, “pick me!")
>

Yes, of course.  GRP_devel is not a very restricted credential; it
basically means "This person writes code or something like that, and
can probably be trusted not to rage-edit the repository."

(You are now a member. Anybody else who should be a member, please let
me know on IRC or something.)

-- 
Nick
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[David Goulet]

On 07 Oct (11:56:32), David Goulet wrote:
> Hello tor-dev!
> 
> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
> 
> blocker critical major normal minor trivial
> 
> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
> 
> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
> 
> 2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:
> 
> blocker --> Immediate
> criticial --> Very High
> major --> High
> normal --> Medium
> minor --> Low
> trivial --> Very Low
> 
> 3) World trac domination!

Ok everyone! We are at "world trac domination" status. We now have a
Severity field for which I used the same name from the old Priority
field (since we all know semantically what they mean, I kept them).

The priorities have been rename like above.

Happy traccing!

Cheers!
David

P.S
For now, when you open a ticket, there are no default for both since
there is a bug in trac that doesn't allow me to change it. I've pinged
a sysadmin so hopefully will be resolved soon.

> 
> This could get confusing for some tickets after that but at least we can
> transition towards using the Severity field from now on.
> 
> Anyone object or think it's a bad bad idea?
> 
> This is very little work for lots of benefits so I don't want to get
> into a massive reorg. or bike-shedding the naming convention. I would be
> open though to drop the "Very [High|Low]" field but that could make some
> tickets with less semantic.
> 
> I'll let that sync for some days before doing anything. Let's not wait
> anymore and take back our Trac system! Freedom!
> 
> Cheers!
> David



> ___
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[George Kadianakis]

David Goulet  writes:

> On 07 Oct (11:56:32), David Goulet wrote:
>> Hello tor-dev!
>> 
>> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
>> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
>> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
>> 
>> blocker critical major normal minor trivial
>> 
>> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
>> 
>> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
>> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
>> 
>> 2) Rename all priorities to something more meaninful:
>> 
>> blocker --> Immediate
>> criticial --> Very High
>> major --> High
>> normal --> Medium
>> minor --> Low
>> trivial --> Very Low
>> 
>> 3) World trac domination!
>
> Ok everyone! We are at "world trac domination" status. We now have a
> Severity field for which I used the same name from the old Priority
> field (since we all know semantically what they mean, I kept them).
>
> The priorities have been rename like above.
>
> Happy traccing!
>
> Cheers!
> David
>
> P.S
> For now, when you open a ticket, there are no default for both since
> there is a bug in trac that doesn't allow me to change it. I've pinged
> a sysadmin so hopefully will be resolved soon.
>

Thanks for the transitioning!

FWIW, it seems that the current default Priority for new tickets is
"Immediate" and the default Severity is "Blocker".  This might cause
people who don't know how trac works, submitting stressfull trac tickets.
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor]

> On 14 Oct 2015, at 23:13, George Kadianakis  wrote:
> 
> David Goulet mailto:dgou...@ev0ke.net>> writes:
> 
>> On 07 Oct (11:56:32), David Goulet wrote:
>>> Hello tor-dev!
>>> 
>>> While 028 bug triaging, we realized that we *really* need priorities to
>>> not be a banana field deprive of useful meaning. If you are unaware or
>>> don't remember, the priority field in a trac ticket can be:
>>> 
>>>blocker critical major normal minor trivial
>>> 
>>> Those are "severities" *NOT* priorities. Now I propose the following:
>>> 
>>> 1) I take those above and copy them to the already existing but empty
>>> severity field. They seem reasonable and we are used to them.
>>> ...
>> 
>> P.S
>> For now, when you open a ticket, there are no default for both since
>> there is a bug in trac that doesn't allow me to change it. I've pinged
>> a sysadmin so hopefully will be resolved soon.
>> 
> 
> Thanks for the transitioning!
> 
> FWIW, it seems that the current default Priority for new tickets is
> "Immediate" and the default Severity is "Blocker".  This might cause
> people who don't know how trac works, submitting stressfull trac tickets.

And every time I edit an existing ticket, it gets severity “Blocker”, because 
there’s no severity assigned.

Tim

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP 968F094B

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

Re: [tor-dev] Trac priorities and severities

[Damian Johnson]

Hi David. Personally I find the split severity and priority redundant
but that's fine (milestone, tor version, and other fields are only
applicable to core tor - it's easy to ignore yet another field).
However, in this case you made it mandatory by giving it a default.
Mind making priority optional?

Cheers! -Damian
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev