Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > 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).
At the current point of time, "Critical" seems to be enough. Basically it means that the effects from this bug impact current operations rather than just the users/developers affected by it directly. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
