OK, it sounds like the fuzziness with prioritization, perhaps with the
exception of "unbreak now", isn't worth the effort to harmonize globally
because doing so would require nontrivial effort for questionable gain.
Thanks for clarifying.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Gergo,
>
> I understand that it might take 2 hours to complete a priority X task that
> has been open for 2 years, but depending on the definition of "high"
> priority, it seems to me that the median high priority task should be open
> for fewer
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:42 PM Stas Malyshev
wrote:
> Yes, it looks more the case of "we thought it's a high priority task but
> turned out it's not" rather than "we take a long time to do high
> priority tasks". I.e. maybe we need to have some rules around removing
> tasks from "High" if it's
Hi!
>> and "high"? The reason that I ask is that a median age of 738 days for
>> "high" priority tasks seems very long. I would hope that we would not take
>> two years to complete "high" priority tasks.
>>
>
> The median age of open priority X tasks is not the same as the median time
> it takes
Hi Gergo,
I understand that it might take 2 hours to complete a priority X task that
has been open for 2 years, but depending on the definition of "high"
priority, it seems to me that the median high priority task should be open
for fewer than 2 years.
Maybe this is a complex enough topic that
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:14 PM Pine W wrote:
> Thanks for the updated statistics. I wonder, was there ever an agreement on
> how to standardize the definitions for priorities, such as "unbreak now"
> and "high"? The reason that I ask is that a median age of 738 days for
> "high" priority tasks
Thanks for the updated statistics. I wonder, was there ever an agreement on
how to standardize the definitions for priorities, such as "unbreak now"
and "high"? The reason that I ask is that a median age of 738 days for
"high" priority tasks seems very long. I would hope that we would not take
two
Hi Community Metrics team,
This is your automatic monthly Phabricator statistics mail.
Accounts created in (2018-07): 293
Active Maniphest users (any activity) in (2018-07): 912
Task authors in (2018-07): 473
Users who have closed tasks in (2018-07): 325
Projects which had at least one task
Hello,
We suffered an unexpected issue with the phabricator database replica,
which I believe it is used to generate these stats.
We will hopefully have it back up today and we can re-run the script.
Sorry for the inconveniences,
Manuel.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:01 AM, יגאל חיטרון wrote:
>
Hi. All the data seems to be irrelevant - either empty or maximum.
Igal (User:IKhitron)
On Aug 1, 2018 03:00, wrote:
Hi Community Metrics team,
This is your automatic monthly Phabricator statistics mail.
Accounts created in (2018-07):
Active Maniphest users (any activity) in (2018-07):
Task
Hi Community Metrics team,
This is your automatic monthly Phabricator statistics mail.
Accounts created in (2018-07):
Active Maniphest users (any activity) in (2018-07):
Task authors in (2018-07):
Users who have closed tasks in (2018-07):
Projects which had at least one task moved from one
11 matches
Mail list logo
