Re: Issuezilla: meaning of milestone '---' vs. 'unscheduled'

"Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
> When an issue is initially submitted, its target milestone is set to '---'.
> Someone then generally changes that to 'unscheduled', if no other
> milestone is appropriate.
>
> I believe an unspoken policy of using this '---' -> (something else)
> transition as an opportunity to do initial triage of an issue has
> emerged. I think this is a good thing, so I'm suggesting we make this
> an actual explicit policy, so everyone understands the meaning of the
> '---' milestone as "issue awaiting initial triage".
>
> I don't think we need explicit criteria for passing this initial check
> - we can just leave it to a committer's sense of "is there enough
> information in this issue for us to do something useful?"

+1, and if you want to add language to this effect to
project_issues.html, I certainly wouldn't argue. (I might even clap.)

Brane points out that using a state, "UNCONFIRMED", would technically
be better than using a milestone. True, but on other hand, I sort by
milestone (do others as well?) and seeing all the "---" issues bunched
up front is very handy...

-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org