On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 09:31 -0700, Pine W wrote: > it seems to me that "unbreak now" bugs should be fixed in something like > 10 days max. If something is seriously broken, 48 days is long time to > wait for a fix.
Note that the value does not express how long a task has had this priority, but how long a task which currently has this priority set has been open. For example, T1090 has been open since Nov 2014 but has "Unbreak now" priority only since March 2015. On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 20:40 -0300, Brian Wolff wrote: > Or perhaps we need better definitions of what unbreak now means. Wasn't the > original definition supposed to be for major outages? The type of thing > where 48 hours was the very outside limit on acceptability? E.g. bugs of > the form "25% of users can't edit". The task priorities are defined here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Project_management#Priority_levels The list of open or stalled tasks with "Unbreak now" priority: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/WtxxGlVJ.aPg/#R Some of these tasks likely don't match the definition of "Unbreak now". It is welcome to ask about the progress of tasks which have had "Unbreak now" priority set for a while and point to the priority definitions. Generally speaking, some teams/developers are better and some are worse setting realistic expectations via priorities. The absolute numbers of open tasks per priority and project (distribution of priorities in each project) can be seen here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/report/project/?order=total In my opinion, low and lowest priority should be used way more often. Cheers, andre -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
