Re: GOP-PROP 8: issue priorities

[Keith OHara]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:13:49 -0700, Jan Warchoł <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2011/8/6 Keith OHara <address@hidden>:
> > "order in which the project encourages
> > contributors to attack issues".
>
> Sounds good to me.  Still, decision depends on our views about
> relative importance of user needs vs. developer needs.

Decision of the contributor on what to attack next, right?

We could collectively agree how to assign "priorities", right now
-- without all agreeing on whether the precise spacing of notes in boring 
monophonic music is more or less important than making readable interesting 
piano music with clef changes and staff-crossings :-)


On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:55:46 -0700, James Lowe <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 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?

I don't think Janek was suggesting we drop the field, only that my suggestion 
sounds more like a label than a rank.

When it's time for a release we make sure the Critical issues are solved.  
Right before a release individual contributors will probably prefer to 
concentrate on ugliness issues, whether we assign them High or Medium, and go 
back to maintenance issues after the release.

> 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?

How do you do it now?
Star the issue.  Post a well-considered description of what the good output 
would be, maybe with a reference, so the developer knows how to proceed without 
making a trip to the library.  Complaining about how bad the bug is tends to 
back-fire, but sometimes we need some explanation why the buggy output is 
actually wrong.