Re: Issuezilla: meaning of milestone '---' vs. 'unscheduled'

[Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> "Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
> > When an issue is initially submitted, its target milestone is set to '---'.
> > Someone then generally changes that to 'unscheduled', if no other
> > milestone is appropriate.
> > 
> > I believe an unspoken policy of using this '---' -> (something else)
> > transition as an opportunity to do initial triage of an issue has
> > emerged. I think this is a good thing, so I'm suggesting we make this
> > an actual explicit policy, so everyone understands the meaning of the
> > '---' milestone as "issue awaiting initial triage".
> > 
> > I don't think we need explicit criteria for passing this initial check
> > - we can just leave it to a committer's sense of "is there enough
> > information in this issue for us to do something useful?"
> 
> +1, and if you want to add language to this effect to
> project_issues.html, I certainly wouldn't argue.  (I might even clap.)
> 
> Brane points out that using a state, "UNCONFIRMED", would technically
> be better than using a milestone.  True, but on other hand, I sort by
> milestone (do others as well?) and seeing all the "---" issues bunched
> up front is very handy...

Since we can do the UNCONFIRMED thing without impacting the "---" milestone
benefits pointed out by Karl, I've made the change in the Issuezilla
configuration.  This required changing the number of votes it takes for an
issue to automatically be promoted out of the UNCONFIRMED state to > 0 (I
set it to 3).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Issuezilla: meaning of milestone '---' vs. 'unscheduled'

[Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005, kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> "Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
> > Also, if we're doing the UNCONFIRMED/NEW, thing, then I think there is
> > no longer any real distinction between "---" and "unscheduled". So, I
> > propose to change the default milestone to "unscheduled", and delete
> > the "---"
> > milestone.
> 
> That's fine by me.  As long as we watch the incoming issues carefully
> and move urgent ones to real milestones, it should work out okay.

Done.  Unfortunately, for some of you this will result in a deluge of issue
change notification emails (sorry to say that this is unavoidable).  I
recommend doing a search using your email client for mails generated by
this mass change, then selecting and deleting the results of your search.

I also increased the "number of votes required for automatic promotion"
setting as suggested by Max.

- Dan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Issuezilla: meaning of milestone '---' vs. 'unscheduled'

[kf...@collab.net]

"Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
> Also, if we're doing the UNCONFIRMED/NEW, thing, then I think there is
> no longer any real distinction between "---" and "unscheduled". So, I
> propose to change the default milestone to "unscheduled", and delete
> the "---"
> milestone.

That's fine by me.  As long as we watch the incoming issues carefully
and move urgent ones to real milestones, it should work out okay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Issuezilla: meaning of milestone '---' vs. 'unscheduled'

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
>> "Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
>>> When an issue is initially submitted, its target milestone is set to
>>> '---'. Someone then generally changes that to 'unscheduled', if no other
>>> milestone is appropriate.
>>>
>>> I believe an unspoken policy of using this '---' -> (something else)
>>> transition as an opportunity to do initial triage of an issue has
>>> emerged. I think this is a good thing, so I'm suggesting we make this
>>> an actual explicit policy, so everyone understands the meaning of the
>>> '---' milestone as "issue awaiting initial triage".
>>>
>>> I don't think we need explicit criteria for passing this initial check
>>> - we can just leave it to a committer's sense of "is there enough
>>> information in this issue for us to do something useful?"
>>
>> +1, and if you want to add language to this effect to
>> project_issues.html, I certainly wouldn't argue.  (I might even clap.)
>>
>> Brane points out that using a state, "UNCONFIRMED", would technically
>> be better than using a milestone.  True, but on other hand, I sort by
>> milestone (do others as well?) and seeing all the "---" issues bunched
>> up front is very handy...
>
> Since we can do the UNCONFIRMED thing without impacting the "---" 
> milestone
> benefits pointed out by Karl, I've made the change in the Issuezilla
> configuration.  This required changing the number of votes it takes for an
> issue to automatically be promoted out of the UNCONFIRMED state to > 0 (I
> set it to 3).

Can we set it to 999, or something? I don't think this feature is useful to 
our workflow at all.

Also, if we're doing the UNCONFIRMED/NEW, thing, then I think there is no 
longer any real distinction between "---" and "unscheduled". So, I propose 
to change the default milestone to "unscheduled", and delete the "---" 
milestone.

Max.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org