On 29.10.2018 14:00, Julian Foad wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 28.10.2018 14:40, Julian Foad wrote: >>>> [ >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4555?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel >>>> ] >>>> Priority: Trivial (was: Major) >>> Brane: why this change? 'Major' (which is the default/usual) priority >>> seemed right to me. >> There are a number of problems with this idea, [...] >> IMO there are much, much more important things we should be doing [...] >> Therefore I'd say that centralised pristine storage is far down the list >> of features we'd like to add. > I don't disagree. It would be good to copy those observations into the issue.
Will do. > As for priority, the label "trivial" suggests no real impact and we tend to > use that for items such as "information in a FAQ entry is outdated" > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4682). [...] > The old issue tracker used values "P1 ... "P5" for the "Priority" field, and > described it as "level of importance ... to help determine the priority ... > P1 - Most important ... P5 - Least important": > http://subversion.tigris.org/scdocs/ddIssues_EnterModify.html#priority Indeed, "modern" issue trackers have been ignoring the difference between the "priority" and "severity" of an issue and conflate them in some form of "priority" field. I really don't like that, because it blurs the difference between the "political" and "engineering" aspects of an issue. > I would submit that since the majority originate in the old issue tracker, > this meaning is most prevalent. That's possible. In this particular case I did not worry about how the reporter of the issue feels, since this was a breadcrumb we'd created for ourselves. But if we use the Priority field to record the effort or severity, and I feel that "Major" is not correct, calling it "Critical" or "Blocker" is hardly helpful — this particular feature has almost zero impact on the day-to-day usage of subversion (disk is cheap, remember?) but can have a rather important effect in edge cases. What to do? > So maybe we should move all the existing "priority" field values to a field > named "importance", with the sole exception of any you have deliberately set > to actually mean priority. Ah, if we call it "importance" then "Trivial" is correct for this feature, IMO. -- Brane
