Re: Issue weight migration

Isn't there already a "needs triage" label separate from this? Which would make that plus explicit priority a suggested priority to guide whoever's doing triage. (I expect triage goes beyond simply priority setting, e.g. making sure it has the right component(s) and maybe assigning specific people who know that component.) On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:43 AM Ben Gamari wrote:

Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs 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

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

-- brandon s allbery kf8nh allbery.b@gmail.com