Proposed procedure

Traditionally a bug list could contain both a severity and a priority. Severity is the estimation of how much of a problem it is. Priority is how urgent the fix is needed.  The distinction is made because something severe may not be the next priority to be dealt with & the wizzard is likely to fix the ones that can be batched all at once.
I am trying to get all the bugs, wishes & requests into the same group.  I would propose that something more uniform like tags p1-p5 be the priorities ; s1-s5 be the severities; and that w1-w5 be the wishlist interest levels with the lower the number being the more priority, severity, or desireability of the item.
I propose that all items that are either bug or wish be entered into group system items.
A bug may turn into a fix or a "not a bug" or a request for a faq. (disposition is either a d1, d2 or d3 respectfully).
So that an item tagged with s1, p1 & d3 would be a bug that has a severe effect, is high on the wizzard's priority list but ended up being documented away in a faq.
There will be other items in this group but those tagged this way undoubtedly could be summed up in a stufflink of some kind. If I find the energy I will try to provide a single item with all the items of this kind in a matrix with a comment column for the wizzard.

Tags

  1. qa
  2. procedures
  3. bug list

Comments


Mark de LA says
that might reinforce this plan because I would like all this private to group system items

Seth says
^ is bottom right above the censors ... hmmm now why did i want to exclude that syntax ?

Seth says
notice that it is escaped in the URL to %5E ... but then so is space

Seth says
so does @ only its under . and numbers

Seth says
well $ sorts to the top.

Mark de LA says
$ prefix is fine. Almost anything that would sort to the very end might be fine, but would prefer to have it skip the taglist entirely.

Mark de LA says
well then we do have the tilda same as the censor uses

anonymous says
logic is a bit different. ~ can only be affixed by the censors group and makes the item private to the author's group. if the item is private to the author's group, then we may never see it.

Mark de LA says
Maybe can keep keep things the way they are and all future items created from items in the discussions can go this way.

Seth says
In general i accept this proposal.  Especialls as to p1-p9 and s1-s9 and d1-d9 as being the tags we are to use.  I think the p and the s tags should be removed when the the disposition is made; that way the tag rooms d1 etc automatically clean up as the tags are removed.

I may have misunderstood, but i don't like the idea that i need to enter group system items just to tag, priortize, or dispose of a problem.   What specifically was your objective there?  Perhaps we can achive that objective easily without reqiring all this entering and leaving groups.

Mark de LA says
Well, I wanted the tags to be private to the group system items so that I didn't have to look at them in the living stream.

Mark de LA says
It looks as if I can say that a bug has both a priority & an severity tag. A request  or suggestion has a priority and a wish tag and a solved item has only a disposition tag.
So the tag prefixes tell you what the items are.

Seth says
... yes that sounds perfect. Make it so

Seth says
On the prob of excluding them from the "living stream", I think we could put some kind of prefix on the tag that is private to group system items. Perhaps $p1 ? Whould that meet your objectives?

Actually i wish there was a way to classify a group as seeing '$' tags and not seeing them. There, of course, are lots of ways to do it ... hmmm ... cant't be too indirect or it becomes too expensive. Almost needs to be something that i put in the cookie ... gotta think about it a while ...

Seth says
but a person can have taken on any group and then find a bug and tag it. if you make those private to their group, then you have just lost it.

See Also

  1. Thought RTE Matrix with 6 viewings related by tag "qa".
  2. Thought we need to simlify this bug tracking with 1 viewings related by tag "qa".
  3. Thought [title (1611)] with 0 viewings related by tag "qa".
  4. Thought Triage with 0 viewings related by tag "qa".
  5. Thought need to agree on bug tags with 0 viewings related by tag "qa".
  6. Thought about: Wiki: Introduction To Fit with 0 viewings related by tag "qa".