Re: How to do issue triage in web-platform-tests?

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:21 AM James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>

Getting back to this finally...

Just 3 priorities seems fine to me, with priority:backlog as the lowest
prio. Maybe combine with difficulty:easy for people who are looking for
contribution opportunities.

The trouble is with the middle priority, where priority:soon doesn't quite
cut it I think. For all work that is planned, I think that milestones would
actually make sense, would anyone mind that? For work that is planned
quarterly, it could be milestones like "2017 Q4", but it could just as well
be grouped into projects like "WebRTC testing effort" or similar.

Bob, WDYT?