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

Brandon Allbery writes:

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.)

Yes, this is precisely my concern. If our experience with Trac is any guide it seems likely that reporters will indeed set issues priorities and it's not clear that this is something that we want to discourage. For this reason I haven't yet removed the "needs triage" label and won't do so until we get a sense for how frequently reporters set the priority themselves. Cheers, - Ben