Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 54615 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2006 22:01:51 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jul 2006 22:01:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 2448 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2006 22:01:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 2421 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jul 2006 22:01:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 2411 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jul 2006 22:01:50 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:01:50 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.182.145] (HELO e5.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.145) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:01:49 -0700 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6QM1Rj8028709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:01:27 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6QM1RH9290798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:01:27 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6QM1R2O010091 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:01:27 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sig-9-76-193-174.mts.ibm.com [9.76.193.174]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6QM1PHR010015 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:01:26 -0400 Message-ID: <44C7E634.3010300@apache.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:01:24 -0700 From: Daniel John Debrunner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: Re: remaining 10.2 blocker References: <44C111B0.9060009@sun.com> <44C19A86.7070408@sbcglobal.net> <44C19F31.2020506@sbcglobal.net> <44C4D999.4040305@sun.com> <44C7AEBA.8040302@sbcglobal.net> <44C7BC73.8090305@sun.com> <44C7C313.4050307@sbcglobal.net> <44C7C7A0.8030505@sun.com> <44C7D485.6030905@sbcglobal.net> <44C7DADF.7050202@sun.com> <44C7DCDA.80203@apache.org> <44C7DFE8.20204@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <44C7DFE8.20204@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Rick Hillegas wrote: > I'm simply trying to clarify the transition from the current scheme to > Kathey's preferred scheme. Someone has to fill in the value of Urgency > for pre-existing issues. I'm asking whether this is the algorithm for > determining Urgency values for 10.2 issues which have already been logged. I see what you mean, even though there is no "transition from the current scheme". We don't have a current scheme for defining priority(jira urgency), only one for defining severity(jira priority). Dan.