Issue weight migration

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Issue weight migration

Ben Gamari-3
Hi everyone,

Today I will run the migration moving the information encoded in issue
weights to priority labels, as discussed on this list last week [1].

Cheers,

- Ben


[1] https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2019-July/017851.html

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Issue weight migration

GHC - devs mailing list
Thanks Ben.   Did we agree to have

* 3 explicit labels (high, normal, low)

* With absence of a label indicating "has not been assigned a priority"
  which you can also read as "needs triage".


I would strongly prefer not to have
  "no label" = "low priority"
as I described earlier

Simon

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: ghc-devs <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Ben Gamari
|  Sent: 07 July 2019 18:32
|  To: GHC developers <[hidden email]>
|  Subject: Issue weight migration
|  
|  Hi everyone,
|  
|  Today I will run the migration moving the information encoded in issue
|  weights to priority labels, as discussed on this list last week [1].
|  
|  Cheers,
|  
|  - Ben
|  
|  
|  [1]
|  https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.ha
|  skell.org%2Fpipermail%2Fghc-devs%2F2019-
|  July%2F017851.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cf79dfc3d0
|  20e46af165f08d70301164c%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6369
|  81175530582443&amp;sdata=e47yXB%2B5Ox69IjV2TNcOWnKXZVa5zpFN7L9Bcga4E%2F8%
|  3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Issue weight migration

Ben Gamari-3
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <[hidden email]> writes:

> Thanks Ben.   Did we agree to have
>
> * 3 explicit labels (high, normal, low)
>
> * With absence of a label indicating "has not been assigned a priority"
>   which you can also read as "needs triage".
>
> I would strongly prefer not to have
>   "no label" = "low priority"
> as I described earlier
>
We actually have four labels (highest, high, normal, low), mirroring
Trac. On further reflection I agree with you; "no label" = "normal
priority" left a bit too much implicit.

Regardless, whether we want to equate the lack of a priority label with
"needs triage" is another decision. I'm not opposed to this but I do
wonder whether issue reporters might be tempted to set the ticket
priority, thereby inadvertently circumventing the usual triage process.

Cheers,

- Ben


_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue weight migration

Brandon Allbery
Isn't there already a "needs triage" label separate from this? Which would make that plus explicit priority a suggested priority to guide whoever's doing triage. (I expect triage goes beyond simply priority setting, e.g. making sure it has the right component(s) and maybe assigning specific people who know that component.)

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:43 AM Ben Gamari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs <[hidden email]> writes:

> Thanks Ben.   Did we agree to have
>
> * 3 explicit labels (high, normal, low)
>
> * With absence of a label indicating "has not been assigned a priority"
>   which you can also read as "needs triage".
>
> I would strongly prefer not to have
>   "no label" = "low priority"
> as I described earlier
>
We actually have four labels (highest, high, normal, low), mirroring
Trac. On further reflection I agree with you; "no label" = "normal
priority" left a bit too much implicit.

Regardless, whether we want to equate the lack of a priority label with
"needs triage" is another decision. I'm not opposed to this but I do
wonder whether issue reporters might be tempted to set the ticket
priority, thereby inadvertently circumventing the usual triage process.

Cheers,

- Ben

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs


--
brandon s allbery kf8nh

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Issue weight migration

Ben Gamari-3
Brandon Allbery <[hidden email]> writes:

> Isn't there already a "needs triage" label separate from this? Which would
> make that plus explicit priority a suggested priority to guide whoever's
> doing triage. (I expect triage goes beyond simply priority setting, e.g.
> making sure it has the right component(s) and maybe assigning specific
> people who know that component.)
>
Yes, this is precisely my concern. If our experience with Trac is any
guide it seems likely that reporters will indeed set issues priorities
and it's not clear that this is something that we want to discourage.

For this reason I haven't yet removed the "needs triage" label and won't
do so until we get a sense for how frequently reporters set the priority
themselves.

Cheers,

- Ben


_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

signature.asc (497 bytes) Download Attachment