Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [plan] Simplify the addition of repository content | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Equinox | Reporter: | Jeff McAffer <jeffmcaffer> |
| Component: | p2 | Assignee: | P2 Inbox <equinox.p2-inbox> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | P4 | CC: | pascal |
| Version: | 3.5 | Keywords: | plan |
| Target Milestone: | 3.5 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows Vista | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Jeff McAffer
John, what logic are you using for priorities here? Given the importance of people adding and managing repo content, setting this to P4 seems strange. is it because is it a plan item? (are all plan items at P4). BTW, this plan item captures things like adding the publisher etc. I see now that we the other plan items are P4. Ok. Seems like we would want ot have some plan items higher priority than others. We already have the "plan" keyword and [plan] in the title. Hiding away the plan items by putting them in a low priority may cause us to miss/forget the big picture. Just my opinion. As a point of interest, are we intending to follow the P4 and [plan] convention across all of Equinox? If so, we should send a mail message to the list letting people know that they should update their plan bugs. Is this a topic for tomorrow's Equinox call? Sure, I was just following the eclipse project convention where all plan item bugs started as enhancement/P4 to reflect their non-committed status, and then owners could later adjust priority as they see fit. I'm open to a different approach (I rarely use the priority field so the priority makes little difference to me). Many improvements went in: - composite repository - improved robustness around mirror app - slicing mode of the mirror app |