Weight field in issues too fine grained?
Simon Peyton Jones
simonpj at microsoft.com
Tue Jul 2 07:54:20 UTC 2019
Omer's suggestion makes sense to me
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org> On Behalf Of Ömer Sinan
| Sent: 02 July 2019 07:05
| To: ghc-devs <ghc-devs at haskell.org>
| Subject: Weight field in issues too fine grained?
| One of the problems I'm having when triaging is that I think the "weight"
| field for issues is currently too fine grained. The triage protocol
| gives some idea but it's still up to the person who's doing triaging to
| decide, for example, between 7 vs. 10 for a runtime crash.
| I think a better "weight" field would be what we had in trac: highest,
| high, normal etc. that way we don't have to decide whether a runtime panic
| is 8 or 9 or 10, we'd just mark it as "highest".
| Now if we had a lot of issues with weight 8, 9, 10 etc. perhaps we'd use
| the weight field to prioritize, but in my experience we usually have very
| little such issues and they all get fixed before the next release, so the
| distinction between e.g. 8 vs. 9 is not useful or meaningful.
| Is it possible to do switch to trac-style priority/weight field in Gitlab?
| Anyone else think that this would be good?
| ghc-devs mailing list
| ghc-devs at haskell.org
More information about the ghc-devs