I like the idea of adding some release meta-info to the priority levels.
However I would slightly clarify your wording on the release info for
the priority levels:
*Blocker* - Must have. Release not complete until issue is resolved.
*Critical" - Should have. Release not complete until issue is resolved
or all parties agree to drop/postpone until next release.
*Major* - Likely have. Release is likely to have issue resolved. However
due to workload or other major blocking items issue may be postponed.
*Minor* - May have. Issue is low priority for this release and will be
completed for release time permitting.
*Trivial* - May have. Issue is low priority for this release and may be
completed for release time permitting.
It is a similar idea to yours, and I tried to put a release-related
statement next to each level.
Ramkumar R wrote:
One way, I could think as a solution to this issue is to re-define the
definitions of the existing priority levels in the JIRA system. An issue has
a priority level which indicates its importance.
The currently defined priorities are shown below.
*Blocker* Blocks development and/or testing work, production could not run
*Critical* Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. *Major* Major loss of
function. *Minor* Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy
workaround is present. *Trivial* Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or
misaligned text.
I believe, re-defining what this priority level means for a release as shown
below would help.
*Blocker* Release will not be completed until issue is resolved. *Critical
* Issue will most likely be resolved for release. *Major* Issue should be
resolved for release. *Minor* Issue may be resolved for release.
*Trivial* Issues
that might be resolved before a release.
OR another way to achive the same would be to add additional priprity levels
(other the default levels) at the admistration section of the JIRA system.
--
Thanks, Dan Becker
