Isn't there already a "needs triage" label separate from this? Which would make that plus explicit priority a suggested priority to guide whoever's doing triage. (I expect triage goes beyond simply priority setting, e.g. making sure it has the right component(s) and maybe assigning specific people who know that component.)
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:43 AM Ben Gamari <[email protected]> wrote: > Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <[email protected]> writes: > > > 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 > > > We actually have four labels (highest, high, normal, low), mirroring > Trac. On further reflection I agree with you; "no label" = "normal > priority" left a bit too much implicit. > > Regardless, whether we want to equate the lack of a priority label with > "needs triage" is another decision. I'm not opposed to this but I do > wonder whether issue reporters might be tempted to set the ticket > priority, thereby inadvertently circumventing the usual triage process. > > Cheers, > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > -- brandon s allbery kf8nh [email protected]
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
