bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olemis Lang <>
Subject Re: Add Priority: Normal for issue tracker
Date Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:21:32 GMT
On 2/27/13, Ryan Ollos <> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Gary Martin
> <>wrote:
>> [...]
>> I am not yet convinced that this change is worth it. I agree that there
>> is
>> a problem with the number of major tickets but major does not sound
>> particularly ominous to me and it currently represents the middle
>> priority.
>> Is there an equally strong aversion to calling a ticket minor?
> I don't think we need more choices: minor, normal and major would be enough

please keep blocker to highlight tickets that must be solved in order
to release ... or to say it right «don't release until blockers are
solved» , which a bit different than major

> for my purposes. I read "major" as having elevated importance though, so I
> think it just comes down to terminology. I just don't think the default
> should imply that a decision has been made about the importance of the
> ticket relative to other tickets, and having a default of "major" or
> "minor" implies that (to me).
> Another approach could be:
>  * Rename "major" to "normal"
>  * Rename "critical" to "major"
> So then we'd have trivial, minor, normal, major and blocker. I'd prefer
> this approach to adding another priority.

IMO trivial may go away as well , merged with minor .



View raw message