IMHO, we should either stick to our own guidelines for bugs (critical are
fixed ASAP, serious is fixed before a release), or change the guidelines.
I'm sure there are many bugs labeled "serious" that aren't really serious,
but instead of leaving them, they should be changed to non-critical.  At
the least, there shouldn't be any open critical bugs when 1.3 is released.
I know that's easier said than done. I'm willing to help any way I can.

Think how someone will feel when they are trying to decide between
NetBSD/FreeBSD/Linux/OpenBSD, and notice that NetBSD has 20 open
"critical" kernel bugs, and 116 open "serious"  kernel bugs. I certainly
wouldn't try NetBSD after seeing those stats if I didn't know better. 

Rick

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Eric S. Hvozda wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:12:17 -0500  "John F. Woods" wrote:
> > > See http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/pr-fields.html for definitions.
> > 
> > It would be nice if "man send-pr" contained the same information...
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> Far as 1.3 is concerned, are we going to address serious/high bugs or
> only critical/high before the roll out?  Bueller?
> 

=========================================================================
Rick Byers                                      Internet Access Worldwide
rickb@iaw.on.ca                                		     System Admin
University of Waterloo, Computer Science                    (905)714-1400
http://www.iaw.on.ca/rickb/                         http://www.iaw.on.ca/