Weight field in issues too fine grained?

[Simon Peyton Jones]

Hang on.

| >  * P::High would be category (1)
| >  * P::Low would be category (2)
| >  * No P::* label would imply categoy (3)

Let's have P:High, P:Medium, P:Low, with no "P:" label meaning "no one has assigned it a priority yet".

It's very important to be able to distinguish "no one has assigned a priority" from "priority has been assigned as low".

Simon


| -----Original Message-----
| From: Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org>
| Sent: 02 July 2019 17:13
| To: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpickering at gmail.com>; Simon Peyton Jones
| <simonpj at microsoft.com>
| Cc: ghc-devs <ghc-devs at haskell.org>
| Subject: Re: Weight field in issues too fine grained?
| 
| Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> writes:
| 
| > Right. I would suggest that we convert the weight field into two
| > (mutually exclusive) labels:
| >
| >  * P::High would be category (1)
| >  * P::Low would be category (2)
| >  * No P::* label would imply categoy (3)
| >
| > Does this sound reasonable to everyone? I could cobble together a
| > script to make this change in about 10 minutes if so.
| 
| I have
| I have posted this script here [1].
| 
| Cheers,
| 
| - Ben
| 
| 
| [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/bgamari/gitlab-migration/snippets/1457