Hi,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:01:21PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> == short term ==
>
> To keep the highest=MAB equivalence clean, some regular (weekly?) checking for
> bugs that are priority:highest and not a MAB would be needed. Such bugs could
> be seen as "proposed MABs" and either be:
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:18:18AM -0800, bfoman wrote:
> This proposal seems do not take into account Priority and Severity
> combinations
How so? Or better: What usecase does the new workflow disrespect that worked
before. FWIW, development didnt base anything on priority or severity so far
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> This is done now too, so right now, all NEW bugs(*) with priority highest
> should
> also block a MAB and all NEW bugs blocking a MAB should be priority
> highest.
Hi!
This proposal seems do not take into account Priority and Severity
combinations and IMHO is not possible
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:21:48PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> + All Most Annoying Bugs -> priority Highest (Bjoern)
This is done now too, so right now, all NEW bugs(*) with priority highest should
also block a MAB and all NEW bugs blocking a MAB should be priority highest.
I updated t
