On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Gary Martin <[email protected]>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.
