RE: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities

[James Lowe]

Hello,
________________________________________
> But any interpretation of "priority" in the sense of "importance" seems
> useless.  We differ quite a lot in our opinions of importance.  I suspect
> Janek and I would rank issues in near-opposite order of importance.  That
> means that any importance-type priority estimated by the contributor who
> opens the issue, won't really help other contributors decide what to work on
> next.
>
> Probably, however, we would all sort issues into roughly the same types of
> problems:
> Regressions, crashes, incorrect output, ugly output, things that get in the
> way of contributing, ...
>
> So, all we really need to do is make useful classifications, and admit that
> we won't all agree on their relative priorities.

This sounds a bit like "let's drop 'priority' field and use labels only" :)

-----

OK but it still doesn't get away from the 'when do we release the next stable 
release' question if we only have labels?

When we don't have regressions only? regressions + crashes?

Are some regressions more 'critical' than others (genuine question) ditto 
crashes?

Also let's say I have 20 'ugly output' issues, how do I as a user show my 
preference for one or more of them so that a dev who has the skill and choice 
to work on any knows which one will benefit the project from a user's 
perspective?

After all I see issues bumped 'down' because they seem to have been hanging 
about for 'ever' and no one shows an interest in it. So issues must also be 
able to be bumped 'up' right?

Therefore Labels in this sense that are just descriptive don't help.

James