[Scribus] bug severity
Sat Nov 10 21:42:23 CET 2007
> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>> I've reported a couple of bugs lately, and am wondering if there are
>> standards regarding the "severity" field. I know everyone always thinks
>> bugs that affect *them* are more serious than others might think, and I
>> don't take it *personally* that one of my reports was downgraded in
>> severity. But this does suggest that if there are standards for
>> severity, it would be great if they were public and perhaps open for
>> critique. And if there are not, I think there should be.
> No, we don't have a fixed standard for that, just some rules-of-thumb.
> "feature" is reserved for feature requests (in contrast to bug reports)
> "crash" is self-expalnatory
> "block" is an issue that must be fixed before the next release. We use
> of that category to collect all issues we want to have fixed in the next
> The remaining categories are:
> The default is "minor".
> IIRC "text" is used for spelling erros and the like.
> IMHO one of "tweak" or "trivial" is superflous.
> I guess we choose the severity mainly based on how visible a bug is, that
> means how many users might run into it. On that scale your bug would
> classify as "minor" since registration marks aren't used by all users.
> OTOH we treat any bug that causes a job to fail at the print service bureau
> as "major", "crash" or "block".
> Following your explanation, I agree that your bug should be treated as this.
> Maybe we should introduce a new category for this kind of bugs, eg.
> "jobfailure" or something like that.
I have a hard time with this. I submitted a bug for the fact that text
flowing around Bounding Boxes doesn't work at all, so it was a severe
bug from that perspective, even though it doesn't otherwise impair Scribus.
More information about the scribus