[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: issue classification: priority guidelines

From: Valentin Villenave
Subject: Re: issue classification: priority guidelines
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:55:53 +0100

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Priority-High: An issue which produces output which does not accurately
> reflect the input (e.g where the user would expect an accidental, but none
> is shown) or which produces aesthetically poor output in a situation which
> could be expected to crop up frequently in real-world music.  It should not
> be used where the problem can be avoided with a simple workaround.  It can
> also be used to flag where new code in a development version is not
> functioning as it should. This level is also used for issues which produce
> no output and fail to give the user a clue about what’s wrong.

I'm afraid it's far too large. If anything, we'll just have more and
more High-prio issues, and less and less people to fix them, in other
words this merely "displaces the problem".

Come on, we've alread got *five* levels of priority! That's at least
one too many already (see below).

> * Priority-Medium: normal priority.

I'd rephrase that as:

Priority-Medium: problems that nobody will ever look at.

> * Priority-Low: A minor problem which produces slightly undesirable output,
> or which will only occur in contrived examples, or which is very easily
> worked around.

I'd rephrase that as:
Priority-Low: problems that nobody will ever _ever_ look at.

> * Priority-Postponed: no fix planned. Generally used for things like Ancient
> notation, which nobody wants to touch.

Problems that nobody will ever, ever, EVER, have a look at.

In other words, you get what I mean. recategorizing issues as
High-prio just because they do affect and annoy a lot of users, is not
proper development policy, it's merely pointless fluffy feelgood
politics (and I'm usually the one advocating for that's kind of
things, but now it would just be plain hypocrisy on our side given
that we lack resources and that we perfectly know that no one will
ever, ever, ever (...) look at these problems).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]