On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: >> I suggest that you keep any such decision to yourself until >> just before the next stable is built, or defer making it until >> then. Otherwise interest in fixed such bugs will wane. > > And in the interest of making a release, I want to have people > prioritize on those bugs that will affect the release. That's the main > point of having priorities in the first place.
Do you think we shall have a "priority" field in our tracker again? Don't get me wrong: i don't want to give priorities to all issues! I think that abandoning old priorities was reasonable because they didn't mean anything. It would only make sense to use 2 or 3 levels (critical, high, low(?)) and use them sparingly (no more than a dozen high-priority issues, preferably just a few). Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
