Le 13/10/2015 00:53, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:28:23PM +0200, Liviu Andronic wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Guillaume Munch <g...@lyx.org> wrote:
The problem with letting community members define what is important
and what is not, is that for each and every one of us our pet bug is
the most importantest of 'em all. Until now we had a somewhat rigid
system of determining what is of high importance (i.e. crash) and what
is not (i.e. enhancement), and this seems to work quite well for our
core devels.
Thank you for all of the discussion on this topic. My priority will be
changing tickets that have the 2.2.0 miletone to either remove the
milestone or change it to 2.2.x or 2.2.1. Please feel free to change the
priority or severity and of course to disagree with a decision I make
regarding the milestone and anything else.
My point again: whatever field we use to denote the triaging
information, the tracker should be set up to direct users towards this
usage. I would have been reassured to see people trying to address this
side of the issue as well. Let us think about this now. First, please,
explain to me what the milestones ".x" are supposed to mean exactly and
I can suggest an appropriate change to the tracker page (which may or
may not be just "add .x milestones to the front page").
In addition, the exchange showed the confusion about the purpose of the
priority field: Liviu says that it is a "rigid system" to determine what
is of importance or not, and that we want "priority labels that mean
what they say", while Pavel reveals that it was just "hijacked" to set
up a colour code. In any case this code was kept well secret and does
not always correspond to what I observe in practice on trac.
If you do not like my suggestion to "hijack" the color field again for
something more intuitive, maybe we can still think about the place we
give to enhancements, because the current system wrongly gives the
impression that they are less important (in particular are considered on
the same scale as defects to begin with). Liviu's objections regarding a
long-standing "red" enhancement comes in my opinion from a
misunderstanding of my proposal which I recognise stemming from this way
Trac currently makes us think: indeed, if enhancements were shown
separately from defects (through various settings of trac: front page,
default columns...), how could a long-standing red enhancement diminish
the value of red defects? Liviu's example ironically shows the need for
a way to show that there is a consensus around a very desirable feature,
however difficult (in a way easier to sort and keep up to date than the
wiki).
I still think that refocusing the priority field would be more useful
than .x milestones, in particular because they do not need to be rolled
over to the next milestone every year. But my point applies to whatever
system is chosen.
Guillaume
