It appears to me that we are inconsistently using the "Priority" definitions in Jira---one person's "Critical" is another person's "Major". I'd like to propose the following annotations of the definitions so that we can apply them consistently:
Blocker: this is reserved for problems that create almost immediate catastrophic failure of the current version of the system---i.e. central functions of the system are unusable due to this problem. For example, a bug in the Eclipse sensor that causes Eclipse to crash regularly, rendering the IDE useless to anyone who has installed it. If you are assigned a Blocker issue, you need to drop everything else and fix it. Blockers are by definition of type "defect". Critical: this is reserved for problems that substantially impair the functioning of the current version of the system, or else substantially impede our normal software development process. For example, if a bug is introduced into the kernel that makes it impossible for anyone else to do any development, that would be a critical issue. If you are assigned a Critical issue, you need to drop everything else and fix it. Critical issues are by definition of type "defect". Major: these are non-critical defects, or else "major" improvements or new tasks. They might take a lot of time, or be defects that can reduce functionality somewhat. Minor: These are issues that are relatively straightforward to deal with. Trivial: commenting, indentation, etc. What results from this scheme is the following: Blockers are very rare. Criticals are rare. Majors are common. Minors are rare. Trivials are very rare (we don't generally bother to report these) Cheers, Philip
