Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Florent Thoumie <flz@xbsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/66740: [MAINTAINER] security/f-prot-sig: update to 20040517 Message-ID: <200405201840.i4KIetGQ073769@realtime.exit.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405201317410.28097-100000@pancho>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Linimon wrote: > The last time we discussed these fields I was of the opinion that > we should try to get people to use these fields correctly. But > having seen that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of PRs > with all manner of settings of these fields, I now have changed > my mind and think these fields should just be dropped. In general, "severity" and "priority" fields are next-to-useless. The customer always wants the problem fixed yesterday, so tends to give everything a high severity, while they have very little context to know what the priority should be. I've only ever found such fields useful when they are only visible internally and are used as guides by the people responsible for the PRs. My $.02, from my _extensive_ experience in this area. :-) -- Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/ http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200405201840.i4KIetGQ073769>