I like the agile programming or extreme programming model that you work on the items at the top of the list, and don't worry about the items near the bottom of the list.
The low priority items will be fixed when all the items above them are finished. It is probably a waste of time to precise prioritize low priority items which are not close to being fixed, but it may not be a big waste of time. Of course, with open source software, anyone can offer a fix of a low priority or postponed item at any time. I don't think postponed is desperately, but it probably doesn't hurt to have it, as long as you don't need to spend too much time categorized each bug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_programmingp Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> Sounds good. You have to be careful that the postponed category >> doesn't become a dumping ground though. a > > Well, in some ways the "low" category is already a dumping ground. > I'd rather have a dedicated label for such things, instead of > everything being "low". > > I don't think it's bad to have a dumping ground -- we just don't have > enough developer resources to fix every bug and implement every > feature request. With a "dumping ground", users (and potential > bug-fixing developers) will get a more realistic idea of the devel > team's abilities and limits. > > Cheers, > - Graham > > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
