- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:21:10 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On 08/08/17 20:45, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > I think we can something workable with just priority labels. What would > people like? I think that low/medium/high/urgent is the largest number of > priorities that could be useful, but 3 could also suffice. > low/medium/high/urgent would correspond fairly well to the P3-0 that > crbug.com has, would anyone mind it? I feel like the three priorities are approximately "this needs to be fixed asap", "this is something we will work on in the next weeks", "this is something which isn't going to get attention soon". So that's three priorities. Maybe there's some difference between "this is something we would like to work on but don't have time right now" and "this is something we would never spend time on but would take patches for". So I can also see a case for four. But I would like it to be documented (and if possible obvious from the labels) what the actual expectations around various priorities are. I don't think that low/medium/etc. or 0/1/2/3 really conveys well. Something more like priority:urgent, priority:<not sure how to convey this one>, priority:backlog and priority:patches-accepted would be better.
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2017 09:21:35 UTC