We do have a feature keyword today. While it may be most used for the documentation purposes, the feedback graphics team got when we started using it to tag feature requests was positive. As in, it’s OK to use for that. — - Milan
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 22:32 , Emma Humphries <e...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> On a more substantive, less procedural note, this seems to be designed for >> a particular workflow in which there is an assumption that bugs are for >> immediate processing. However, in may cases we use bugs as placeholders or >> assemble big dependency trees of all the bugs that are needed to do a large >> complex feature. From this perspective, a three-tier system of "urgent", >> "non-urgent", and "wishlist" is either a regression from more fine-grained >> systems such as dependency trees/priorities or is redundant with them. This >> is especially true for long-running efforts. In other words, this may be a >> useful change for some components while not being useful for others. For >> the specific case of NSS (where I currently do a lot of my work) this >> doesn't seem like it would be a helpful change. > > > This is where it would be nice to have a way of saying, feature vs. bug as > part of the triage process, even it that's not a clean separation to make, > because that could get long running feature work out of the triage process, > but I don't have an immediate answer for this. It may be that we change the > scope of components this applies to. > > I'll follow up with Doug Turner to see if changing the scope of this for > platform related bugs is warranted. > > > -- > Emma > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
