On Apr 08, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 eximdev@??? wrote:
> >
> > The default priorites are P1 to P5. I prefer more descriptive terms such
> > as 'critical', 'high', 'medium' and 'low'. The severity describes the
> > impact of the bug and the defaults are 'blocker', 'critical', 'major',
> > 'normal', 'minor', 'trivial' and 'enhancement'.
>
> They seem easy to confuse. Can these fields be renamed at all? The current
> wishlist is categorized by estimated size of task, which seems a useful
> thing to keep.
Would maybe a merge/combination of them be useful? I agree that the wishlist
'levels' are useful, but it might be nice to easily distinguish between, for
example, a Medium 'enhancement' and a Medium 'normal' bug (in the bug = fault
sense of the word)
> > Maybe Linux needs splitting up a bit?
>
> A good idea.
I'm not sure I really see the need, off-hand - pretty much all of the
distribution specific 'bugs' (or all queries on the exim-users list, really)
seem to be related to a specific package rather than the Exim source itself
(Almost all of the queries seem to be related to the Debian packages
(unsurprisingly), and if they a package-specific bug is present,
bugs.debian.org seems to work well and be the right place for it.
Also I think remaining distribution independent might help here - it's very
easy for people who don't know to assume that "the Exim author(s)" are
responsible for the package that came with their Debian/RedHat/FreeBSD/whatever.
Maybe the distinction shouldn't be blurred further?
I'm not sure there's any easy answer to that, though!
--
Mark Hynes mark.hynes@???
Service Developer http://www.uk.easynet.net/
Easynet Ltd
