Thanks Ben. Did we agree to have * 3 explicit labels (high, normal, low)
* With absence of a label indicating "has not been assigned a priority" which you can also read as "needs triage". I would strongly prefer not to have "no label" = "low priority" as I described earlier Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-devs <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ben Gamari | Sent: 07 July 2019 18:32 | To: GHC developers <[email protected]> | Subject: Issue weight migration | | Hi everyone, | | Today I will run the migration moving the information encoded in issue | weights to priority labels, as discussed on this list last week [1]. | | Cheers, | | - Ben | | | [1] | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.ha | skell.org%2Fpipermail%2Fghc-devs%2F2019- | July%2F017851.html&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf79dfc3d0 | 20e46af165f08d70301164c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6369 | 81175530582443&sdata=e47yXB%2B5Ox69IjV2TNcOWnKXZVa5zpFN7L9Bcga4E%2F8% | 3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
