Issue weight migration

Ben Gamari ben at
Mon Jul 8 10:43:30 UTC 2019

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <ghc-devs at> 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.


- Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list