Hi,
Sebastian and me recently had a meeting at CERT.at - discussing the minimal feature set that we still want to have (from our perspective) for putting a "1.0" label on it.
We came up with a list. I am now prioritising this list.
I took a trick which I learned from another software project and assign priorities to the issues I create in github in the form of Fibonacci sequence numbers: 1,2,3,5,8,13. The benefit of this is that an intuitive value of 13 is really as valuable/high prio as the sum of the previous two priorities. It's rather a bit geeky, but it seems to work.
Example: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/issues/722
Anyway. Just letting you know (so that you don't wonder what this is). This is merely to be read as hint as what I see as high prio. Feel free to adapt the prios or discuss here.
Best, a.
Hi,
thanks for ordering these Issues.
So I understand: A higher the number in square-brackets, indicates a higher priority.
BR Dustin
Am Mittwoch 05 Oktober 2016 19:03:02 schrieb L. Aaron Kaplan:
Hi,
Sebastian and me recently had a meeting at CERT.at - discussing the minimal feature set that we still want to have (from our perspective) for putting a "1.0" label on it.
We came up with a list. I am now prioritising this list.
I took a trick which I learned from another software project and assign priorities to the issues I create in github in the form of Fibonacci sequence numbers: 1,2,3,5,8,13. The benefit of this is that an intuitive value of 13 is really as valuable/high prio as the sum of the previous two priorities. It's rather a bit geeky, but it seems to work.
Example: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/issues/722
Anyway. Just letting you know (so that you don't wonder what this is). This is merely to be read as hint as what I see as high prio. Feel free to adapt the prios or discuss here.
Best, a.
On 07 Oct 2016, at 10:53, Dustin Demuth dustin.demuth@intevation.de wrote:
Hi,
thanks for ordering these Issues.
So I understand: A higher the number in square-brackets, indicates a higher priority.
Yes. 13 is as valuable as the sum of 8 and 5 .. that's the idea. As said - it is just an initial gut feeling prioritation by me. Feel free to change/adapt.
BR Dustin
Am Mittwoch 05 Oktober 2016 19:03:02 schrieb L. Aaron Kaplan:
Hi,
Sebastian and me recently had a meeting at CERT.at - discussing the minimal feature set that we still want to have (from our perspective) for putting a "1.0" label on it.
We came up with a list. I am now prioritising this list.
I took a trick which I learned from another software project and assign priorities to the issues I create in github in the form of Fibonacci sequence numbers: 1,2,3,5,8,13. The benefit of this is that an intuitive value of 13 is really as valuable/high prio as the sum of the previous two priorities. It's rather a bit geeky, but it seems to work.
Example: https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/issues/722
Anyway. Just letting you know (so that you don't wonder what this is). This is merely to be read as hint as what I see as high prio. Feel free to adapt the prios or discuss here.
Best, a.
-- dustin.demuth@intevation.de https://intevation.de/ OpenPGP key: B40D2EFF Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück; AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner _______________________________________________ Intelmq-dev mailing list Intelmq-dev@lists.cert.at http://lists.cert.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/intelmq-dev
Am Freitag 07 Oktober 2016 11:17:49 schrieb L. Aaron Kaplan:
it is just an initial gut feeling prioritation by me. Feel free to change/adapt.
How could I? Technically I think I am missing some permissions on https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/issues
This is serious question how could someone get more access rights to the issue tracker? Who should get it?
I'm fine with me personally not getting more access. What I am suggesting is that we come up with a good rule how people can get this access and who will grant it. It can be as simple as
"""The current maintainer or deputy maintainer will grant more access by request, just ask on intelmq-dev@.
With Maintainer: Aaron Deputy: Sebastian. """
Or additional """The access it granted provisonally, if significant helpful activity arises within the next 3 month, it becomes regular, otherwise it can just be withdrawn without notice".
Overall it should be simple to get access in order to raise the chance of people helping. However the burden on the granters should be small and it should be possible.
Am Mittwoch 05 Oktober 2016 19:03:02 schrieb L. Aaron Kaplan:
- discussing the minimal feature set that we still want to have (from our
perspective) for putting a "1.0" label on it.
At time of writing we have 33 open issues [1] I took a look at the 6 with the highest priority (=='13') today and commented them.
My suggestion is to lower priority or move to v1.0 for [13] intelmqctl check [13] modify bot: overhaul/redesign improving usability
Best, Bernhard
[1] https://github.com/certtools/intelmq/issues?q=is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22v1.0...
On 12 Oct 2016, at 14:54, Bernhard Reiter bernhard@intevation.de wrote:
Am Mittwoch 05 Oktober 2016 19:03:02 schrieb L. Aaron Kaplan:
- discussing the minimal feature set that we still want to have (from our
perspective) for putting a "1.0" label on it.
At time of writing we have 33 open issues [1] I took a look at the 6 with the highest priority (=='13') today and commented them.
My suggestion is to lower priority or move to v1.0 for [13] intelmqctl check [13] modify bot: overhaul/redesign improving usability
okay, makes sense. Will adopt these changes in some days unless someone objects.