On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> > 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.

> > 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"?

> There's absolutely no reason why there can't (in theory) be a critical
> sw-bug with low priority (eg, some old hardware that NetBSD now considers
> deprecated) or a non-critical change-request with high priority (eg, a
> suggestion that's really liked by developers, but involves an API issue
> that must be resolved before the next release goes out).

That's all fine (in theory), but the only practical purpose of
all that is to sort them on the web page, by severity first, then
priority. If you browse the page of unassigned bugs for a category,
you'll see that non-critical/high are listed beneath critical/low.
Of course volunteers can work on bugs in any order they like.

Frederick