Mark A. Hershberger wrote: > On 11/19/2012 08:33 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: >> == Proposal == >> >> Proposing the following definitions for Priority: >> * highest: Needs to be fixed as soon as possible, a week at the >> most. A human assignee should be set in the "Assigned to" field. >> * high: Should be fixed within the next four weeks. > > You don't refer to it, so I assume you haven't seen > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Fields#Priority> where all this > was spelled out before. > > (I don't see the assignee bit there -- "A human assignee should be > set..." -- but that sounds like how I tried to use highest before.)
Andre didn't refer to that page, but he edited it on November 2, 2012: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Bugzilla/Fields&action=history So I think it's fair to assume that he's familiar with it. ;-) For what it's worth (and not to ruin the "silence is consensus" model), the proposed priority scheme sounds fine to me. Traditionally these fields have been mostly ignored by just about everyone (developers included). High priority bugs have many other ways of making themselves high priority; they really don't need help from a drop-down menu, but if you can increase the utility (or perceived utility) of that field, go for it. :-) MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
