On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> > Well then, they're listed wrong on the web page. They're sorted by
> > severity first, then by priority. I suggest that the "priority" should
> > be the "severity", nothing more or less -- so that "security-critical"
> > bugs get placed before "build-critical" bugs, which get placed before
> > "serious" bugs, which get placed before "feature-requests", which get
> > placed before "doc" bugs -- without exception.
>
> We already have a security category for security related issues, so I
> don't think that should skew the sorting. As for the rest of your
> proposed order, then that is a matter of personal taste: Do you really
> think that adding new features is more important than fixing bugs in the
> existing documentation?

Maybe not. Given that the priority is subordinate to the severity, we
really can't use "priority" as you've suggested, either. How about if
all new bugs are priority "high", all assigned bugs are changed to
priority "medium", and all suspended (or pending? or feedback?) bugs
are changed to priority "low"?

> Part of the problem with gnats is that its report generation is fairly
> primitive; having started use bugzilla on GCC recently, the difference is
> clearly vast.

I'm not that impressed with bugzilla. I find it difficult to get a
list of *all* the bugs, and then once you're in a bug, it's really
difficult to see the patches.

Frederick