From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12531 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2004 18:16:29 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Jul 2004 18:16:29 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BpWV2-00001E-Fs for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:16:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 32407 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jul 2004 18:16:28 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 19983 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2004 18:16:27 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:17:42 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: ferringb@gentoo.org Message-id: <1090952262.1538.67.camel@6-allhosts> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lYD8krXb0eprd6e8lwNs" X-Spam-Report: TrustedSender=yes, SenderIP=128.104.49.188 X-PMX-Info: Server=avs-1, Version=4.6.1.107272, Antispam-Core: 4.6.1.106808, Antispam-Data: 2004.7.27.108809, SenderIP=128.104.49.188 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug voting X-Archives-Salt: 86dbaf07-1149-441c-a22f-79fb4a19ec66 X-Archives-Hash: e5a84f66ebc8cc50cd8e01553c68accf --=-lYD8krXb0eprd6e8lwNs Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pardon to those who're on -core, since I fired it off to core when the thread is in -dev :) On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 12:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:54:49 -0400 Dylan Carlson > wrote: > | 1. Without bug voting, there's no way to determine what bugs are most > | important to the public (or at least to the people using Bugzilla, > | which is really *our* public, in a working sense). I'm not sure if users will use it sanely/sparingly, but this does seem like a decent way to A) gain feedback on actual user priority, B) get people to stop fooling w/ priorities, and posting semi-demanding commentary asking asking why it is their their xyz feature they want hasn't been implemented. I like the notion of being able to gauge what is important to our users- this option would likely be worthless for actual bugs, but enhancement requests it would rock for. > Well, given that most of our users don't seem to be able to get the > priority field straight ("Waah! There's a tiny typo in an einfo > statement! BLOCKER!"), I'd be kind of sceptical about an easily rigged > popularity contest. I suspect we'd just end up seeing thousands of votes > for "add more pictures to bootsplash" and "add this horribly broken > kernel patch to g-d-s"... It's a feedback system, just that. What you're pointing out above w/ the priority is tied to a single user incorrectly estimating the level of borkage, which is kind of odd anyways- the dev looking into the problem probably is well aware of the severity of the bug. Personally I've always wondered why general users could fiddle w/ priority settings. Either way, back to the bug voting issues, keep in mind if we turn this on, and it ends up being abused/not incredibly useful, we *can* just turn the dumb thing off. Aside from time involved in setup (and potentially disabling), there isn't a heck of a lot lost by trying. Right? ~brian --=-lYD8krXb0eprd6e8lwNs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBBpxEvdBxRoA3VU0RAgdKAJ0Sp+q7XzUiUuJh7FcJ3O8d1+qwVQCeNXkd KY6oGh7rKT/CrfnYpVtFCDg= =o9Rq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-lYD8krXb0eprd6e8lwNs--