Hang on. | > * P::High would be category (1) | > * P::Low would be category (2) | > * No P::* label would imply categoy (3)
Let's have P:High, P:Medium, P:Low, with no "P:" label meaning "no one has assigned it a priority yet". It's very important to be able to distinguish "no one has assigned a priority" from "priority has been assigned as low". Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> | Sent: 02 July 2019 17:13 | To: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpicker...@gmail.com>; Simon Peyton Jones | <simo...@microsoft.com> | Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> | Subject: Re: Weight field in issues too fine grained? | | Ben Gamari <b...@smart-cactus.org> writes: | | > Right. I would suggest that we convert the weight field into two | > (mutually exclusive) labels: | > | > * P::High would be category (1) | > * P::Low would be category (2) | > * No P::* label would imply categoy (3) | > | > Does this sound reasonable to everyone? I could cobble together a | > script to make this change in about 10 minutes if so. | | I have | I have posted this script here [1]. | | Cheers, | | - Ben | | | [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/bgamari/gitlab-migration/snippets/1457 _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
