[Design] Dogfoodable flag

[Philippe Bossut]

I'm not disagreeing and I'm fine raising the severity and priority so 
that we get to these bugs fast. If we consider those as "functional 
tests that are not automated" cases, then, yes, they should be fixed 
immediately.

May be we shouldn't have added the flag then, it's not adding much to 
the set of existing fields.

Cheers,
- Philippe

Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
> I agree with Sheila's point here that the "dogfoodable" flag should 
> affect priority.
>
> Some bugs have a big impact on people trying to use and test the app 
> (which is really what we mean by "dogfood" here). We screen for many 
> of these kinds of problems with functional tests, and stop and fix 
> problems if they cause the functional tests to fail (or don't commit 
> code that causes these regressions in the first place).
>
> My understanding is that the "dogfoodable" tag is about marking bugs 
> that strongly impact use and testing. Many are regressions where we 
> don't yet have a functional test. We should use this tag sparingly, 
> but I think the point is to acknowledge that fixing such bugs has a 
> high payoff even in the short term, and to use that information when 
> judging the priority. Whether or not a given developer should fix a 
> dogfood bug vs finish other feature tasks depends on the developer and 
> the tasks.
>