W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > July to September 2017

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

From: Bob Holt <bob@bocoup.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:57:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFf+SkPGLW5qxJJ4h0tU=XJCXwKK1YrsGgwJQt+pgjHsfhdk0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>
Cc: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, public-test-infra@w3.org
Re: labels, and building on James's suggestions I propose:
- priority:urgent
- priority:roadmap
- priority:backlog

The second one is still a tricky one, but to me, it conveys an intent to

I think it's difficult to milestone in a community project where
participants are coming from all different project management paradigms and
expectations. It's not impossible, but it's difficult. In the current
governance, I imagine when things are triaged into priority:roadmap, there
would be some sort of IRC/GitHub discussion prioritizing it against the
rest of the work. If we could settle on a milestone naming convention, that
could get added/edited after those discussions.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com> wrote:

> 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?
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:58:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:34:13 UTC