[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: |
Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:24:08 -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.
Ding ding, I think we have a winner. That sentence is the crux of
the whole thing.
> 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.
>
> I suggest the field is really a categorization to help contributors decide
> what
> to give attention to.
Yes. And with that view, I think it's worth emphasizing "hinders
development" issues.
It's easy to see improvements in graphical output. It's highly
visible, users praise (good) changes, etc. By comparison, look at
"GUB regtest produces a random 'unbound open-file' in regtests"
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1248
People looking at the regtests simply have to remember that they
should ignore warning messages about 'unbound open-file'. If we
have new people working on this -- say, James to check bugs, or
any replacement to Phil or James when they decide that their time
is better spent training a replacement and working on more
sophisticated stuff -- they need to teach their replacement to
ignore 'unbound open-file' warnings, but take other warnings
seriously.
Now, this is not a huge inconvenience... but having this floating
around for a year (I didn't bother adding it to the tracker when I
first noticed it) is an annoyance to people checking regtests. It
sends the message that programmers don't care about the helpful
users volunteering to check regtests.
That's not the message I think we should be sending to each other.
> > Priority-medium:
> >
> > * highest level for graphical output problems
>
> Simply for public relations, I suggest swapping "High" and "Medium". We will
> be just as motivated to solve development-hindering problems if they are
> called
> Medium.
Take a look at issues with label:maintainability. I submit to you
that there is extremely little interest in fixing those issues.
:(
> I suggest that "Postponed" can mean "we're not quite sure what a proper fix
> would look like, yet". Then we know to give this issue a different kind of
> attention, like looking in the textbooks, before we start coding.
I like that idea!
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