On 26 November 2012 10:51, Andre Klapper <aklap...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 02:33 +0100, 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.
>
> Any other opinions, especially by project/product managers?
> Or does silence mean "I don't really care, go ahead"?
For VisualEditor, this is pretty much how I use it *when in
conjunction with a release window* - i.e. "Highest" and "2012-11-26"
meant that it was one of the top priority things for the milestone
that went out on the deploy train this morning, so it would have been
worked on and hopefully closed within that two-week period (of course,
some things take longer).
However, I'd also expect "High"-tagged bugs to get fixed in that two
week period; I suppose that the one week / four weeks split it about
right, but I worry about "Highest"-tagged bugs for work that doesn't
need to land for months. Just because it's not urgent doesn't mean
it's not important. The problem is that our "priority" field refers
mostly to the second and a little to the first, and our "Severity"
refers mostly to the first, but partially to release management work
("Blocker" is not a statement of severity of the problem, but a
prioritisation flag about whether we can release the code;
"Enhancement" similarly is not about severity but about work
priority).
J.
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
