You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> on 2013/02/22 07:32:55 UTC
Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
The default priority in the Bloodhound issue tracker is **High**, so most
issues end up with **High** priority. What about adding **Normal** and
setting that as the default?
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2013 1:22 AM, "Olemis Lang" <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/22/13, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >> >
> >> > +1, Major sounds too extreme for most cases.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is all this related to comment:1:ticket:401 ?
> >
> > That does seem relevant if we wish to control the default priority of
> > tickets created on i.a.o. I guess we need to update the priority list on
> > i.a.o and fix that issue?
> >
>
> until this issue is fixed , there is no hope for improving the situation .
>
I agree with your comment:1:ticket:401. If no one disagrees, I'll push that
change.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 2/22/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2013 1:22 AM, "Olemis Lang" <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/22/13, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> > +1, Major sounds too extreme for most cases.
>> >
>>
>> Is all this related to comment:1:ticket:401 ?
>
> That does seem relevant if we wish to control the default priority of
> tickets created on i.a.o. I guess we need to update the priority list on
> i.a.o and fix that issue?
>
until this issue is fixed , there is no hope for improving the situation .
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Feb 22, 2013 1:22 AM, "Olemis Lang" <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/13, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 22. Feb, 2013, at 7:42, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The default priority in the Bloodhound issue tracker is **High**, so
> >>> most
> >>> issues end up with **High** priority. What about adding **Normal** and
> >>> setting that as the default?
> >>
> >>
> >> To be specific, the default priority is **Major**, but same point
applies
> >> (temporarily confused this with another project I work on).
> >>
> >
> > +1, Major sounds too extreme for most cases.
> >
>
> Is all this related to comment:1:ticket:401 ?
That does seem relevant if we wish to control the default priority of
tickets created on i.a.o. I guess we need to update the priority list on
i.a.o and fix that issue?
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 2/22/13, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 22. Feb, 2013, at 7:42, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The default priority in the Bloodhound issue tracker is **High**, so
>>> most
>>> issues end up with **High** priority. What about adding **Normal** and
>>> setting that as the default?
>>
>>
>> To be specific, the default priority is **Major**, but same point applies
>> (temporarily confused this with another project I work on).
>>
>
> +1, Major sounds too extreme for most cases.
>
Is all this related to comment:1:ticket:401 ?
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> Perhaps I should not have been so soft on this idea. I really don't see
> any advantage big enough in any of the suggestions for me to consider it
> worth getting used to a new setup. Instead, I would encourage us to live
> with what we have and find some more important issues to solve.
>
> Committers should feel free to set the priority of an issue if they feel
> that the default middle priority level is incorrect. We also effectively
> express priority by the placement of an issue in a specific milestone.
>
Well, disagreements aside, I do agree that this has been way over-discussed
relative to its value. I'll move on and pick something else with Priority
"major" or higher to work on.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
Perhaps I should not have been so soft on this idea. I really don't see
any advantage big enough in any of the suggestions for me to consider it
worth getting used to a new setup. Instead, I would encourage us to live
with what we have and find some more important issues to solve.
Committers should feel free to set the priority of an issue if they feel
that the default middle priority level is incorrect. We also effectively
express priority by the placement of an issue in a specific milestone.
Cheers,
Gary
On 28/02/13 08:21, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On 2/27/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Gary Martin
>> <ga...@wandisco.com>wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> I am not yet convinced that this change is worth it. I agree that there
>>> is
>>> a problem with the number of major tickets but major does not sound
>>> particularly ominous to me and it currently represents the middle
>>> priority.
>>> Is there an equally strong aversion to calling a ticket minor?
>>>
>> I don't think we need more choices: minor, normal and major would be enough
> please keep blocker to highlight tickets that must be solved in order
> to release ... or to say it right «don't release until blockers are
> solved» , which a bit different than major
> ;)
>
>> for my purposes. I read "major" as having elevated importance though, so I
>> think it just comes down to terminology. I just don't think the default
>> should imply that a decision has been made about the importance of the
>> ticket relative to other tickets, and having a default of "major" or
>> "minor" implies that (to me).
>>
>> Another approach could be:
>> * Rename "major" to "normal"
>> * Rename "critical" to "major"
>>
>> So then we'd have trivial, minor, normal, major and blocker. I'd prefer
>> this approach to adding another priority.
>>
> IMO trivial may go away as well , merged with minor .
>
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 2/27/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Gary Martin
> <ga...@wandisco.com>wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> I am not yet convinced that this change is worth it. I agree that there
>> is
>> a problem with the number of major tickets but major does not sound
>> particularly ominous to me and it currently represents the middle
>> priority.
>> Is there an equally strong aversion to calling a ticket minor?
>>
>
> I don't think we need more choices: minor, normal and major would be enough
please keep blocker to highlight tickets that must be solved in order
to release ... or to say it right «don't release until blockers are
solved» , which a bit different than major
;)
> for my purposes. I read "major" as having elevated importance though, so I
> think it just comes down to terminology. I just don't think the default
> should imply that a decision has been made about the importance of the
> ticket relative to other tickets, and having a default of "major" or
> "minor" implies that (to me).
>
> Another approach could be:
> * Rename "major" to "normal"
> * Rename "critical" to "major"
>
> So then we'd have trivial, minor, normal, major and blocker. I'd prefer
> this approach to adding another priority.
>
IMO trivial may go away as well , merged with minor .
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> [...]
> I am not yet convinced that this change is worth it. I agree that there is
> a problem with the number of major tickets but major does not sound
> particularly ominous to me and it currently represents the middle priority.
> Is there an equally strong aversion to calling a ticket minor?
>
I don't think we need more choices: minor, normal and major would be enough
for my purposes. I read "major" as having elevated importance though, so I
think it just comes down to terminology. I just don't think the default
should imply that a decision has been made about the importance of the
ticket relative to other tickets, and having a default of "major" or
"minor" implies that (to me).
Another approach could be:
* Rename "major" to "normal"
* Rename "critical" to "major"
So then we'd have trivial, minor, normal, major and blocker. I'd prefer
this approach to adding another priority.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 27/02/13 23:46, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm somewhat reluctant to do this without a review first. There are
>> tickets which should
>> remain Major, so probably we want those singled out first.
>>
> With so many tickets having a priority of "major", it's not conveying any
> useful information right now. It seems like we should just do a hard reset
> of "major" -> "normal", and then let each developer go through the tickets
> and set them to "major" as appropriate. That way we know any tickets that
> are "major" were explicitly set that way after the hard reset.
>
> As far as I know we'll need to wait for Gary's return to make this change.
> I'm assuming no one anyone else has the TICKET_ADMIN permission.
>
I believe that there are others with TICKET_ADMIN permissions.
I am not yet convinced that this change is worth it. I agree that there
is a problem with the number of major tickets but major does not sound
particularly ominous to me and it currently represents the middle
priority. Is there an equally strong aversion to calling a ticket minor?
My worry is that we just continue to leave the priority in its initial
state on each ticket unless we feel strongly about the level. I suspect
that the likely result of all of this is just moving the problem to a
lower priority (albeit with 20% more choice).
Anyway, I am very aware that I am a bit too late to express my opinion
here. Unless someone agrees with me quickly, I will insert the new
default priority in the morning.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> I'm somewhat reluctant to do this without a review first. There are
> tickets which should
> remain Major, so probably we want those singled out first.
>
With so many tickets having a priority of "major", it's not conveying any
useful information right now. It seems like we should just do a hard reset
of "major" -> "normal", and then let each developer go through the tickets
and set them to "major" as appropriate. That way we know any tickets that
are "major" were explicitly set that way after the hard reset.
As far as I know we'll need to wait for Gary's return to make this change.
I'm assuming no one anyone else has the TICKET_ADMIN permission.
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Matevž Bradač <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 22. Feb, 2013, at 7:42, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The default priority in the Bloodhound issue tracker is **High**, so most
>> issues end up with **High** priority. What about adding **Normal** and
>> setting that as the default?
>
>
> To be specific, the default priority is **Major**, but same point applies
> (temporarily confused this with another project I work on).
>
+1, Major sounds too extreme for most cases.
A bit off topic, but the terminology for priority actually describes severity.
Maybe in the future releases we could also consider renaming priority to severity
and adding another field for priority (P0, P1, P2...)?
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good to me. We could also move most of the current tickets to it.
>
>
> Yeah good idea. And super easy to do since we have BatchModify!
I'm somewhat reluctant to do this without a review first. There are tickets which should
remain Major, so probably we want those singled out first.
--
matevz
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>
wrote:
> The default priority in the Bloodhound issue tracker is **High**, so most
> issues end up with **High** priority. What about adding **Normal** and
> setting that as the default?
To be specific, the default priority is **Major**, but same point applies
(temporarily confused this with another project I work on).
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si> wrote:
> Sounds good to me. We could also move most of the current tickets to it.
Yeah good idea. And super easy to do since we have BatchModify!
Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Posted by Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si>.
Sounds good to me. We could also move most of the current tickets to it.
On 22 February 2013 07:32, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> The default priority in the Bloodhound issue tracker is **High**, so most
> issues end up with **High** priority. What about adding **Normal** and
> setting that as the default?
>