[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities |
Date: |
Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:42:55 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:48:12AM +0000, Keith OHara wrote:
> I'm curious first what we want the "priority" field to mean.
>
> Probably we do not mean literally the priority with which contributors will
> give attention to the bugs, because contributors are volunteers driven by
> individual interest.
Another thought: we could look at filling the patch countdown in
order of priority (plus some amount of discretionary judgement if
a patch has been waiting for a long time). I didn't do this in
the last patch countdown, but I'm now thinking that I should have
done this.
One consequence of this interpretation of the Priority field means
that we should probably remove priority-postponed. I mean, if
somebody *does* come by and start working on ancient music, I
don't want to "penalize" having his patches being reviewed just
because nobody's been working on ancient music in the past few
years!
The more that I think about it, the more I like this
interpretation of the Priority field.
Cheers,
- Graham
- GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Graham Percival, 2011/08/02
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, address@hidden, 2011/08/02
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Keith OHara, 2011/08/02
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Keith OHara, 2011/08/05
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Jan Warchoł, 2011/08/06
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, David Kastrup, 2011/08/06
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Wols Lists, 2011/08/06
- RE: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, James Lowe, 2011/08/06
- Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities, Keith OHara, 2011/08/06