Generally when I submit something I leave the priority as "unknown" and let Darkshenron rank it, but regardless I need to ask:
Are (should) the "priority" of tracker issues be ranked by how important the issue is, or how complicated it is? I've always been aware that it was based on how important. However, in a recent tracker item, I had been told otherwise: http://tracker.vbulletin.com/browse/VBIV-13348
The item was originally prioritized as "Major". I commented by saying:
Freddie Bingham then responded in agreement, and lowered it to "Minor":
Paul then comes back, changing it to "Major" saying:
To which I replied:
To which He replied:
So who is correct - Freddie and myself with "Minor" or Paul with "Major"?
Thank you.
Are (should) the "priority" of tracker issues be ranked by how important the issue is, or how complicated it is? I've always been aware that it was based on how important. However, in a recent tracker item, I had been told otherwise: http://tracker.vbulletin.com/browse/VBIV-13348
The item was originally prioritized as "Major". I commented by saying:
I also think it's unfair to make the priority of this "Major" when it's really far from that.
Agreed, I am not aware of any issue that would classify this as major.
Major is the correct classification. Its not a minor change.
It might not be a minor change, but it's not a major priority. AFAIK, you are supposed to classify tracker items by how important they are, not how complicated.
Not quite, its more the effect they will have, which you seem to agree would not be minor.
Thank you.
Comment