Issue tracker "priority" field meaning [was: [jira] [Updated] (SVN-4555) Centralized user level pristine storage]
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 13:00:30 +0000
Branko Čibej wrote:
I don't disagree. It would be good to copy those observations into the issue.
As for priority, the label "trivial" suggests no real impact and we tend to use that for items such as "information in a FAQ entry is outdated" (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4682).
The reporter of such an issue is likely to understand that we feel the issue is of no importance, or that we have completely missed the point, and I want us to maintain a good relationship with our community peers (users).
It seems to me that we really don't mean "priority" literally in our use of the issue tracker: we hardly ever record a decision about the order in which issues will be addressed. Rather we usually mean something like "severity" or "effort", probably conflating those two. In fact, the terms like "trivial" and "major" inherently describe something like a severity or effort rather than a priority.
The old issue tracker used values "P1 ... "P5" for the "Priority" field, and described it as "level of importance ... to help determine the priority ... P1 - Most important ... P5 - Least important": http://subversion.tigris.org/scdocs/ddIssues_EnterModify.html#priority
I would submit that since the majority originate in the old issue tracker, this meaning is most prevalent.
So maybe we should move all the existing "priority" field values to a field named "importance", with the sole exception of any you have deliberately set to actually mean priority.
-- - JulianReceived on 2018-10-29 14:00:38 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.