Thanks for all the good and valuable feedback, explaining your
workflows, and discussing current flaws potential improvements in the
long run.
For the short term I have now created a priority called Immediate
which should be used to identify issues that need immediate attention.
This means that
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 00:36 +0100, Krinkle wrote:
I don't think adding more fields/values is the solution. Perhaps use milestone
for immediate?
Currently milestones are used in MediaWiki for tarballs (that we don't
create for MW 1.21), in VisualEditor for deployments (VE-2012-12-34),
and
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I don't think you would need to ban people not in your group from
touching those fields. You only need to take into account who said that
as well as what they said.
Even when having a shared meaning, it doesn't hold
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 17:36 -0800, James Forrester wrote:
On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Timeframes seem like a pretty good proxy for priority. If something
is highest priority, and
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 17:36 -0800, James Forrester wrote:
On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Timeframes seem like a pretty good proxy for priority. If something
is highest priority, and yet is not on track to be completed for
several months, then.wait,
On 27 November 2012 16:39, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I propose adding a *new* priority called Immediate which should only
be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
above the existing Highest priority.
Has anyone suggested a separate urgency
Hi Arthur,
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 14:54 -0700, Arthur Richards wrote:
I don't think 'importance' should necessarily map to a timeframe for
resolution - at least not one that is set in stone.
With regard to the wider picture, the confusing and partially unclear
concept severity vs priority vs
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:49 +, David Gerard wrote:
Has anyone suggested a separate urgency parameter?
I don't think adding another parameter in the user interface improves
anything. We have already Priority, Severity, Target milestone
and blocker bugs that are all used to somehow express
On 27/11/2012 09:55, Andre Klapper wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:49 +, David Gerard wrote:
Has anyone suggested a separate urgency parameter?
I don't think adding another parameter in the user interface improves
anything. We have already Priority, Severity, Target milestone
and blocker
Rob and Andre, I hear what you're saying. I think I've always had a lack of
clarity around the meanings of priority/urgency/severity/whatever in
bugzilla, and it sounds like I'm not alone :p. That said, I still do not
think timeframes are a good proxy for priority (a la James' example). I
think of
Le 27/11/12 17:49, David Gerard a écrit :
On 27 November 2012 16:39, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I propose adding a *new* priority called Immediate which should only
be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
above the existing Highest priority.
On 27/11/12 19:26, Arthur Richards wrote:
After thinking about this some more, I realized that my reaction to the
proposal in part came from feeling apprehensive about external forces
defining bug priorities/resolution timelines, and thereby defining how a
team must respond to issues in
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 02:33 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
== Proposal ==
Proposing the following definitions for Priority:
* highest: Needs to be fixed as soon as possible, a week at the
most. A human assignee should be set in the Assigned to field.
* high: Should be fixed within the next
On 26 November 2012 10:51, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 02:33 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
== Proposal ==
Proposing the following definitions for Priority:
* highest: Needs to be fixed as soon as possible, a week at the
most. A human assignee should be
Thanks for tackling this, Andre!
I don't think 'importance' should necessarily map to a timeframe for
resolution - at least not one that is set in stone. Different
teams/products use bugzilla to varying degrees and in different ways, and a
reasonable time frame resolving a 'high' priority bug may
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Arthur Richards
aricha...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not suggesting we necessarily go with these definitions, but rather
offering these as an example of potential meanings for the different
priorities. To me this is a much more useful approach than trying to
On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Arthur Richards
aricha...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not suggesting we necessarily go with these definitions, but rather
offering these as an example of potential meanings for the different
On Nov 27, 2012, at 2:36 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Timeframes seem like a pretty good proxy for priority. If something
is highest priority, and yet is not on track to be completed for
several months,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
For what it's worth (and not to ruin the silence is consensus model), the
proposed priority scheme sounds fine to me. Traditionally these fields have
been mostly ignored by just about everyone (developers included). High
== Situation ==
In Wikimedia Bugzilla you can set a priority for a bug report.
Some people and teams set highest priority often (meaning These issues
should get fixed first in the next weeks).
Some don't set it at all (and likely related: Some teams don't really
use Bugzilla but other tools).
On 11/19/2012 08:33 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
== Proposal ==
Proposing the following definitions for Priority:
* highest: Needs to be fixed as soon as possible, a week at the
most. A human assignee should be set in the Assigned to field.
* high: Should be fixed within the next four weeks.
Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
On 11/19/2012 08:33 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
== Proposal ==
Proposing the following definitions for Priority:
* highest: Needs to be fixed as soon as possible, a week at the
most. A human assignee should be set in the Assigned to field.
* high: Should be fixed
22 matches
Mail list logo
