I guess i thought that if something fit here: > Something can be really important to do (high priority) but really easy (small scope),
it wouldn't be "Trivial" it would just be of Priority Critical/Major. Note that "Trivial" came with Jira - not a word I chose. If it were entirely up to me I'd drop Priority to just "High" and "Low". :) I never find too many options for entry helpful when it comes to issue trackers. I'm fine with a label too if folks like the concept of having a pool of easy pickings for people to jump into, but that field is not a dropdown box and we'd have to remember what the label was. I kinda just like re-purposing that one state in Priority, but don't feel super strong about doing it that way. I'm more interested in instituting a method of capturing "easy" issues new committers can jump into. On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Matt Frantz <matthew.h.fra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not to be a word nerd, but I think we want something like "Scope" or maybe > even a number of points. Something can be really important to do (high > priority) but really easy (small scope), so putting it aside for a starter > project would not be appropriate. On the other hand, something that is not > very important to do (a "nice-to-have" feature) even with medium scope > might be a good candidate for a starter project. > > Maybe a "starter" label to indicate good candidates for starter projects? > We'd have to evaluate the amount of context required, which is yet another > dimension. > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I accidentally started labeling certain issues in JIRA with a Priority of > > Trivial because they were not hard to implement and had zero urgency > around > > them. When I got three of them together, I realized that I had a group > of > > issues that were low-hanging fruit for new committers who wanted to > > contribute to the project. > > > > Anyway, I thought that we could make it a policy to use Trivial in this > way > > so that we would have a pool of issues hanging around that new folks > could > > jump into to try to contribute. > > > > Does that sound like a good use of the Priority field? > > >
