When you get toward the end of a product, you have to make the tough
calls about what gets fixed and what doesn't. Most bugs fall into one
of two obvious buckets:
- Must Fix - Something is really bad here. We cannot ship the product without fixing it.
- Won't Fix - The problem is minor, hard to get to, etc. It won't be fixed for this release.
However,
there are a few bugs which don't clearly fit these buckets. There is
no clear call to make on them. My group has come up with some fun names
for some of these bugs. Among the taxonomy are:
- Yetis
- These are bugs that you'd really like to fix but will be really
difficult to find a fix for. If you find a fix, you'll definitely take
it but you won't hold the product until you find one. Issues in this
classification include areas where reproduction is difficult. Stress
crashes, random lockups, and inconsistent behavior all fit into this
category. We thought of using the term Sasquatch but that is too many characters.
- Limpets - These would be more accurately called Remoras,
but why we don't is a long story. These are bugs that we'd really like
to fix but it isn't worth the risk to take a change to a particular
binary or even the whole product just for that fix. Taking a change to
something already considered done requires another build, test pass,
etc.
- Sharks - Remora are also known as suckerfish. They are
known for attaching themselves to the side of a shark. The idea here is
that, while we wouldn't crack open a binary for a limpet bug, if there
is a large fix which must go in, we'd like to take these other bugs with
it. Once you have started changing things and have to redo your test
pass, you might as well include those nice-to-have issues too.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/steverowe/archive/2006/11/10/bug-taxonomy.aspx
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario