| 1 |
On 19/05/2013 23:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
>> OS: Linux |
| 3 |
>> Status: CONFIRMED |
| 4 |
>> Severity: enhancement |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Is a stabilisation an enhancement per se? |
| 7 |
Usually I think so yes. If it is an urgent stabilisation there is |
| 8 |
priority field. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> If all stabilisations are |
| 11 |
> enhancements, then why isn't Severity set to Normal instead? (What is |
| 12 |
> an enhanced severity to begin with, Mozilla?) |
| 13 |
According to the Bugzilla docs: "Severity - How severe the bug is, or |
| 14 |
whether it's an enhancement." so there is no such thing as an "enhanced |
| 15 |
severity". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> Priority: Normal |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> This is where you probably wanted to set something similar to |
| 20 |
> Enhancement above, but again you probably shouldn't. Normal |
| 21 |
> stabilisation bugs are normal, not less than normal. |
| 22 |
Why should enhancement go in the priority field, when it does not |
| 23 |
presently exist there but does exist in the severity field? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Also, your script does not set the STABLEREQ keyword. People are having |
| 26 |
> to hunt down your robo-stabilisation requests and add it themselves. |
| 27 |
> You should just do it yourself or turn your script off. |
| 28 |
According to the bug wrangler docs STABLEREQ should be handled by the |
| 29 |
maintainer. Why should there be a difference whether a user or a dev is |
| 30 |
requesting stabilisation? |
Archives