pressure cooker on the heat (Re: [development] "I'm disappointed by the freeze")

[Karthik]

> Op woensdag 22 februari 2006 11:58, schreef Robert Douglass:
> > 2) the "pressure cooker" organizes the queue into wheat and chaff.
> > When Dries reviews patches, he knows that unless someone trusted has
> > promoted it into the pressure cooker, he doesn't need to fool with it
> > (he still can if he wants, of course). This will negate the
> > "pester-Dries-on-IRC" necessity since any issue in the pressure cooker
> > will automatically get his attention. It also galvanizes the community
> > around the issues in the pressure cooker since it is clear that those
> > are the issues being taken seriously, the ones that are likely to "make
> > it".

What's the difference between the above and RTC?

But I think that adding one or two more priority settings will be
really improve issue handling and help focus on certain issues as
necessary. Something along the lines of:

a) Immediate Importance (or its equivalent): To signify something that
needs to be looked at immediately. This would include issues that need
to be included in an impending release and even security issues which
need to be tackled immediately.

and

b) Fundamental Change (or its equivalent): To denote issues that make
important changes that everybody should be aware of so that they can
add in their opinions.

These priorities can ideally only be set by users belonging to a
certain role, and should be a cinch to implement IMO.

Just a thought ...
-K