About labeling of rejected bug

For rejected bugs, I decided to remove the severity level and not assign any person to the issues. But then issue #119 was raised that made me realize today that this approach does not follow the teaching team's expectation. Because the issue was raised too close to the deadline, I could not react in time to adjust it. It is already past the deadline so I will not risk breaking the rules to change the labelings for the rejected issues. Instead, I want to provide the reason why I did so base on the instruction in the website.

First of all, the reason why I decided to remove the severity level for the rejected bugs is base on the definition of each severity level in the website: Based on these definitions, to be able to have a severity level, it must first be a flaw in the documentation or in the program. So when a bug is rejected, I did not think of it as a flaw and thought that none of the severity labelings is suitable, so I decided to remove the severity level labeling.

Secondly, the reason why I did not assign a person to a rejected issue is based on this instruction: I understood this instruction as "if it is not a bug, no one needed to be assigned to fix the bug", so I decided not to assign a person to the rejected issue.

I hope that this issue does not come across as unreasonable, but I also understand now that the severity labelings and assigned person served as references in case the teaching team ruled that the bug is wrongly rejected based on insufficient evidence. But if it is decided that removing the labels violated the instructions of the bugs reviewing period, I hope that the responsibility for these actions in my team's rejected issues (F09-2) should fall upon me only, as I am the one who suggested doing so.

I also hope that this issue can be used as a suggestion for any change in the content of the website in the future.

nusCS2113-AY1819S1 / forum

About labeling of rejected bug #120