On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "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...
Since we can do the UNCONFIRMED thing without impacting the "---" milestone
benefits pointed out by Karl, I've made the change in the Issuezilla
configuration. This required changing the number of votes it takes for an
issue to automatically be promoted out of the UNCONFIRMED state to > 0 (I
set it to 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 5 01:40:37 2005