--K8zN2sh9fO5jmbe4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:31:08PM +0200, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:53:15PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > We should have a clear definition of these then.
>=20
> Yes, please.
>=20
> > Because of this, marking them as High is good from an engineering
> > POW (maybe critical can be reserved for security problems).
>=20
> IMHO "High" should be reserved for more serious things, e.g. a
> regression which is known to affect multiple platforms.

we already have clear definition.

send-pr(1):

    critical
           The product, component  or  concept  is  completely
           non-operational  or some essential functionality is
           missing (e.g. kernel panic or program core  dumps).
           No workaround is known.

    serious
           The  product,  component  or concept is not working
           properly or significant functionality  is  missing.
           Problems  that would otherwise be considered criti-
           cal are rated serious when a workaround is known.

    non-critical
           The product, component or  concept  is  working  in
           general,  but lacks features, has irritating behav-
           ior, does something wrong,  or  doesn't  match  its
           documentation.

=2E..

    high   A solution is needed as soon as possible.

    medium The problem should be solved in the next release.

    low    The problem should be solved in a future release.


--=20
-- Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@Xtrmntr.org>                   --
--                  <salo@silcnet.org>                   --

--K8zN2sh9fO5jmbe4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+726eiwjDDlS8cmMRAmGaAJ9p4SQSPRc9lXZfuU3O5cwUDAJGRgCePfi0
nDQ9o57oGzrQHdAsbVXKTzY=
=W0hf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--K8zN2sh9fO5jmbe4--