Sounds good to start, we can always adjust later if needed. I actually changed one doc bug priority already using this criteria.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:42 AM Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/09/2015 06:14 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote: > > We often have bugs which create really poor User eXperience (UX) but our > > current bug priority criteria prevent nearly all of them from being > > higher than medium (as they nearly always have workarounds). We need to > > identify what should qualify as a critical, or high UX defect so that > > they can receive appropriate attention. > > > > We discussed what this may look like on the IRC meeting, the general > > idea here is that the complexity of effort to work around the UX issue > > should be related to the priority. > > > > Critical: requires massive effort to work around, including [un|under] > > documented commands and edits to config files > > > > High: requires modification of config files, interfaces that users > > aren't expected to use (ie the API when it's _intended_ to work in the > > CLI / UI (exclusive of interfaces that are intended to only be available > > via API) or requires custom node yaml (again except when it should > > exclusively be available) > > > > Medium: Straight forward commands in the CLI > > Above criteria look excellent to me, thanks Andrew! > -jay > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
