<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28.04.2017 14:17, Tomas Krizek wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:385c9b72-e29c-7ecd-6ce9-e72ff61c54b1@redhat.com"> <pre wrap="">On 04/28/2017 10:15 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi all, I created "blocker" tag for FreeIPA Git Hub PRs. It is should be used to mark PRs which solves test blocker or other functional blockers - e.g. blocks creation of demo. I.e. should be used rather rarely. I don't like the tag name, but I couldn't find better. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">I think we could use the name "high-priority". It could have other uses besides marking a blocker, e.g. requesting prompt execution of tests in PR CI.</pre> </blockquote> Sounds good or maybe "prioritized", IMHO "blocker" word is overused. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:385c9b72-e29c-7ecd-6ce9-e72ff61c54b1@redhat.com"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Note: blocker priority in pagure doesn't imply blocker tag in PR. But testblocker tag in pagure does. Actually I'm thinking about changing Pagure priority names to: "highest, high, medium, low, patchwelcome" </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">+1, but I'd prefer "critical" instead of "highest" </pre> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> </blockquote> +1 for critical pyldap uses "help wanted" instead "patchwelcome", it sounds better to me. I'd use it as separate tag instead of priority. Even high prioritized issues can be made by contributors in early phase of development if they are easy enough. Martin^2 <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Martin Bašti Software Engineer Red Hat Czech</pre> </body> </html>