Issue weight migration

[Ben Gamari]

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs at haskell.org> writes:

> Thanks Ben.   Did we agree to have
>
> * 3 explicit labels (high, normal, low)
>
> * With absence of a label indicating "has not been assigned a priority"
>   which you can also read as "needs triage".
>
> I would strongly prefer not to have 
>   "no label" = "low priority"
> as I described earlier
>
We actually have four labels (highest, high, normal, low), mirroring
Trac. On further reflection I agree with you; "no label" = "normal
priority" left a bit too much implicit.

Regardless, whether we want to equate the lack of a priority label with
"needs triage" is another decision. I'm not opposed to this but I do
wonder whether issue reporters might be tempted to set the ticket
priority, thereby inadvertently circumventing the usual triage process.

Cheers,

- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20190708/830b5010/attachment.sig>