On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 02:22:17PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > - Low: the normal priority. Sorry, but we just don't have many bug > > fixers! I favor honesty over trying to make users happy about > > assigning their pet issue a "higher priority" flag that nobody > > pays attention to. > > Mhmm. Let's pretend that I'm Joe Neeman, and I have some time to fix > something (and I actually know what I'm doing). Wouldn't it be > helpful if I could check the priority flag of the bugs to find > something I should work on more urgently than other things?
Yes. I'm sorry, I overreacted initially. If you would like to change the priority between postponed, low, and medium issues -- either raising the priority of a postponed or low one, or lowering the priority of a low or medium one -- go ahead. The current rankings between those three levels are not at all consistent or meaningful. My attitude (which has probably somewhat carried over to Valentin and James) was that as long as we had open high- and regression-priority issues, it didn't really matter what happened lower down. That was a mistake. The release list for 2.14 already contains an item to check existing bugs to see if they've been fixed without updating the database; perhaps I could ask the bug meisters to also re-evaluate the issue's priorities. I don't think we need an "annoying" tag; better classification between postponed/low/medium should be sufficient. The "is it easy to fix" tag is already indicated with the new Frog tag. Granted, nobody has looked at the code-related issues with this in mind, but if anybody wants to do this, the framework is there. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
