We currently have highest, high, normal, low, and lowest priority labels for github issues/PRs. At the recent status meeting, we proposed consolidating these to a single "high" priority label. Anything "low" priority should be merged or closed since it will be quickly forgotten, and no "normal" tag is needed. With that, we (the BIDS team) would like to encourage reviewers to use the "high" priority tag to indicate things we should be working on. Any objections or thoughts? Matti (in the names of Tyler and Stefan)
On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 11:02 +0300, Matti Picus wrote:
We currently have highest, high, normal, low, and lowest priority labels for github issues/PRs. At the recent status meeting, we proposed consolidating these to a single "high" priority label. Anything "low" priority should be merged or closed since it will be quickly forgotten, and no "normal" tag is needed.
With that, we (the BIDS team) would like to encourage reviewers to use the "high" priority tag to indicate things we should be working on.
Any objections or thoughts?
Sounds like a plan, especially having practically meaningless tags right now is no help. Most of them are historical and personally I have only been using the milestones to tag things as high priority (very occasionally). - Sebastian
Matti (in the names of Tyler and Stefan)
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:22 AM Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 11:02 +0300, Matti Picus wrote:
We currently have highest, high, normal, low, and lowest priority labels for github issues/PRs. At the recent status meeting, we proposed consolidating these to a single "high" priority label. Anything "low" priority should be merged or closed since it will be quickly forgotten, and no "normal" tag is needed.
With that, we (the BIDS team) would like to encourage reviewers to use the "high" priority tag to indicate things we should be working on.
Any objections or thoughts?
Sounds like a plan, especially having practically meaningless tags right now is no help. Most of them are historical and personally I have only been using the milestones to tag things as high priority (very occasionally).
- Sebastian
+1 from me as well. I haven't been using these tags at all.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:49 PM Stephan Hoyer <shoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:22 AM Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 11:02 +0300, Matti Picus wrote:
We currently have highest, high, normal, low, and lowest priority labels for github issues/PRs. At the recent status meeting, we proposed consolidating these to a single "high" priority label. Anything "low" priority should be merged or closed since it will be quickly forgotten, and no "normal" tag is needed.
With that, we (the BIDS team) would like to encourage reviewers to use the "high" priority tag to indicate things we should be working on.
Any objections or thoughts?
Sounds like a plan, especially having practically meaningless tags right now is no help. Most of them are historical and personally I have only been using the milestones to tag things as high priority (very occasionally).
- Sebastian
+1 from me as well. I haven't been using these tags at all.
+1 Ralf
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:10 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:49 PM Stephan Hoyer <shoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:22 AM Sebastian Berg < sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 11:02 +0300, Matti Picus wrote:
We currently have highest, high, normal, low, and lowest priority labels for github issues/PRs. At the recent status meeting, we proposed consolidating these to a single "high" priority label. Anything "low" priority should be merged or closed since it will be quickly forgotten, and no "normal" tag is needed.
With that, we (the BIDS team) would like to encourage reviewers to use the "high" priority tag to indicate things we should be working on.
Any objections or thoughts?
Sounds like a plan, especially having practically meaningless tags right now is no help. Most of them are historical and personally I have only been using the milestones to tag things as high priority (very occasionally).
- Sebastian
+1 from me as well. I haven't been using these tags at all.
+1
+1 I may have used one of the priority labels once or twice, I don't really remember. When I think something needs to be fixed or merged I generally add a benchmark. Chuck
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:10 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:49 PM Stephan Hoyer <shoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:22 AM Sebastian Berg < sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 11:02 +0300, Matti Picus wrote:
We currently have highest, high, normal, low, and lowest priority labels for github issues/PRs. At the recent status meeting, we proposed consolidating these to a single "high" priority label. Anything "low" priority should be merged or closed since it will be quickly forgotten, and no "normal" tag is needed.
With that, we (the BIDS team) would like to encourage reviewers to use the "high" priority tag to indicate things we should be working on.
Any objections or thoughts?
Sounds like a plan, especially having practically meaningless tags right now is no help. Most of them are historical and personally I have only been using the milestones to tag things as high priority (very occasionally).
- Sebastian
+1 from me as well. I haven't been using these tags at all.
+1
+1 I may have used one of the priority labels once or twice, I don't really remember. When I think something needs to be fixed or merged I generally add a benchmark.
benchmark <- milestone.
participants (5)
-
Charles R Harris -
Matti Picus -
Ralf Gommers -
Sebastian Berg -
Stephan Hoyer