Are there existing meanings for the priorities in Jira already? I wasn't able to find any info on either the Beam website or wiki about it, so I've just been prioritizing issues based on gut feeling. If not, I think having some well-defined priorities would be nice, at least for our test-failures, and especially if we wanna have some SLOs like I've seen being thrown about.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:06 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > I've been thinking about this since working on the release. If I ignore > the names I think: > > P0: get paged, stop whatever you planned on doing, work late to fix > P1: continually update everyone on status and shouldn't sit around > unassigned > P2: most things here; they can be planned or picked up by whomever > P3: nice-to-have things, maybe starter tasks or lesser cleanup, but no > driving need > Sometimes there's P4 but I don't value it. Often P3 is a deprioritized > thing from P2, so more involved and complex, while P4 is something easy and > not important filed just as a reminder. Either way, they are both not on > the main path of work. > > I looked into it and the Jira priority scheme determines the set of > priorities as well as the default. Ours is shared by 635 projects. Probably > worth keeping. The default priority is Major which would correspond with > P2. We can expect the default to be where most issues end up. > > P0 == Blocker: get paged, stop whatever you planned on doing, work late to > fix > P1 == Critical: continually update everyone on status and shouldn't sit > around unassigned > P0 == Major (default): most things here; they can be planned or picked up > by whomever > P3 == Minor: nice-to-have things, maybe starter tasks or lesser cleanup, > but no driving need > Trivial: Maybe this is attractive to newcomers as it makes it sound easy. > > Kenn > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:08 PM Alex Amato <ajam...@google.com> wrote: > >> Hello Beam community, I was thinking about this and found some >> information to share/discuss. Would it be possible to confirm my thinking >> on this: >> >> - There are 5 priorities in the JIRA system today (tooltip link >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ShowConstantsHelp.jspa?decorator=popup#PriorityLevels> >> ): >> - >> - *Blocker* Blocks development and/or testing work, production >> could not run >> - *Critical* Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. >> - *Major* Major loss of function. >> - *Minor* Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy >> workaround is present. >> - *Trivial* Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or misaligned >> text. >> - How should JIRA issues be prioritized for pre/post commit test >> failures? >> - I think *Blocker* >> - What about the flakey failures? >> - *Blocker* as well? >> - How should non test issues be prioritized? (E.g. feature to >> implement or bugs not regularly breaking tests). >> - I suggest *Minor*, but its not clear how to distinguish between >> these. >> >> Below is my thinking: But I wanted to know what the Apache/Beam community >> generally thinks about these priorities. >> >> - *Blocker*: Expect to be paged. Production systems are down. >> - *Critical*: Expect to be contacted by email or a bot to fix this. >> - *Major*: Some loss of function in the repository, can issues that >> need to be addressed soon are here. >> - *Minor*: Most issues will be here, important issues within this >> will get picked up and completed. FRs, bugs. >> - *Trivial*: Unlikely to be implemented, far too many issues in this >> category. FRs, bugs. >> >> Thanks for helping to clear this up >> Alex >> >
