[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPTIQ-339?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14055749#comment-14055749
]
Julian Hyde commented on OPTIQ-339:
-----------------------------------
-1
I've felt the same way, that there should be something between "major" and
"minor". But I think other Apache projects use the standard JIRA priorities,
and I think there would be a greater cost if we depart from convention.
So, when you see "major", read it as "normal".
A side benefit - some customers over-state the importance of their issue. They
can log it as "major", and feel they have stated its importance, whereas we
know they it's only really important if they can genuinely say it's a "blocker"
or "critical".
> Need "normal" policy for the issues
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: OPTIQ-339
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPTIQ-339
> Project: Optiq
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov
> Assignee: Julian Hyde
> Priority: Minor
>
> I wish there was "Normal" priority for optiq issues.
> I struggle using "Major" priority (it seems way too high) and I struggle
> using "Minor" (it seems way too low).
> For instance, for this issue I would use "Normal" priority if I could.
> I guess rename Major->Normal, Critical->Major would do the trick.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
