On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:21:39 +0100 Kiwinote <[email protected]> wrote:
Kiwinote -- I had not seen your reply *before* mine's to Gary et all. > Hi everyone, > > In order to better understand these importances, I will attempt to > clarify some of the importances I chose. Hopefully this will lead to > a better understanding. > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Brian Curtis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Kiwinote <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> 5b. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/530187 > >> > > I don't understand why you assigned yourself to the bug report > > here since Gary Lasker fixed it. > > > (I did actually fix this one.) No discussions here. I stand corrected. > > > 5c. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/497109 > >> > > Since it's a usability issue, I think this is more of a low > > importance bug then medium. > > > Ok, although usability is something that very much has the focus in > software-center. I would have chosen the importance medium because I > would not expect an user to find trial software in the 'free > software' category. Especially with paid software coming in later > versions of software-center, it is a good thing that this bug has > been resolved. But indeed this does only affect a small fraction of > the packages. This is a *valid* reasoning, and acceptable. It *can* be argued that this is an important issue, even if hitting few users: after all (IMHO), having trial software in the free section gives the wrong message to the users. Free is free -- now and ongoing. > > > 5d. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/542892 > >> > > A cosmetic/usability issue that does not limit the functionality > > of an application = Low Importance. Not medium > > > Ok, though this bug does actually break functionality. It means > packages like this cannot be installed through software-center. Once > again it only affects a small fraction of the packages. I would still think it is low. > > > I notice that only two of the above need the desired importance, so > > here > >> are a few more bugs chosen to demonstrate deciding importances. > >> - low: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/514859, > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/425850 > >> - medium: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/514874, > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/514846 > >> - high: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/514875, > >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/528051 > >> > > 514875 - you said high, but it's only medium > > > Don't really agree on this. One very common use case of > software-center is to remove software. (Software-center replaces > gnome-app-install, which was called "Add/Remove software" in the > menu.) In the main menu of software-center there are two items, 'get > software' and 'installed software'. If one wants to remove software > it is hard to explain why the software isn't listed under 'installed > software'. I could agree with this being wishlist though. Agreed with WishList. > > > 528051 - you said high, but it's only wishlist > > > Yes, this is a feature request, so strictly speaking it should be > wishlist. This feature request is however the only simple way to fix > a major issue, namely that 31000 items are being displayed in a list > view. Firstly this takes about 8-10 seconds to load, so many users > will give up, thinking that software-center has frozen. A small week > ago this took about 25 seconds, but recent updates have diminished > this time. There is also no way to browse the list as the items are > not in a visible alphabetical order (strictly speaking they are in > alphabetical order of package name). Scrolling lags significantly. I > myself believe that this would be sufficiant reason to set this as > high importance rather than wishlist. I agree now. > > > 514874 - you said medium, but it's only low > > > This I could probably agree with. But although it is a minor issue, > it does affect all packages in main and restricted. Software-center > is giving wrong information in all these cases. I chose medium > because although this is a small issue, it is relatively simple to > fix, and will benefit all users. I agree (although the reasoning surpasses simple triaging, and goes into your persona as developer. > > > 514846 > > > This would be similar to the case above. It is very noticeable and > makes the difference between a good first impression and a bad one. Agree with the reasoning. > > > low importance bugs > > > It is probably clear that these are indeed low importance. > > > Im going to say -1 because you are very close, but there are still > > things you should probably improve upon. Don't hesitate to contact > > me on #ubuntu-bugs in freenode IRC if you want any help. > > > Ok, thanks for taking a look. It would be nice to hear from you > whether my choices make more sense with detailed explanations though. > > Looking back over my reasonings and comparing it to > wiki/Bugs/Importance I think I can draw a few conclusions. I seem to > give an increased importance to bugs that are small, but affect all > users. This could be considered in line with the aims of > software-center. I am furthermore choosing importances based on the > current set of software-center bugs and importances in Launchpad, > rather than strictly following the guidelines for importance. I do > think that this is better for software-center itself, but can see > that it leads to a decrease in consistency throughout Ubuntu. This is > a consequence of software-center in Ubuntu being the upstream. Yes, I thought this would also play a role. Please note that the guidelines are pretty much it -- *guide*lines. They are not set in stone: we are expected to use the good old common sense when triaging. On the other hand, every Importance that is set should be complemented by the reasoning for it. > > Please let me know what you think about this. I really wish you would have included your reasonings when you applied. On the other hand, the wiki page did not clearly indicate we would be considering (as one of the *subjective* evaluation criteria) the reasons for suggesting a specific Importance setting. I have corrected it [1]. I am glad to be able to give you a +1 now. This also happens to be the fastest change-of-opinion I have had on my votes, so there's a new record ;-) Regards, and thank you very much not only for your help, but also for following up and bearing with us. ..C.. [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl?action=diff&rev2=33&rev1=32
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
