We couldn't load all Actvitity tabs. Refresh the page to try again.
If the problem persists, contact your Jira admin.
IMPORTANT: JAC is a Public system and anyone on the internet will be able to view the data in the created JAC tickets. Please don’t include Customer or Sensitive data in the JAC ticket.
Uploaded image for project: 'Jira Data Center'
  1. Jira Data Center
  2. JRASERVER-886

A Jira 'Priority' is really 'Severity' - could we specify a Severity and a Priority instead?

    • Icon: Suggestion Suggestion
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • None
    • None
    • We collect Jira feedback from various sources, and we evaluate what we've collected when planning our product roadmap. To understand how this piece of feedback will be reviewed, see our Implementation of New Features Policy.

      We've been using Jira for a while and generally find it the Mutt's nuts. One thing which has never quite seemed right though is the assignment of priorities to Tasks, Improvements and New Features. We think it's because the priorities in Jira are really severities of bugs and not priorities at all. It would be great to be able to assign priorities to issues that really do relate to the amount of time that should be spent on them.

      For example, if there is some corner case whereby a very specific set of actions can cause the system crash, the severity of the bug is indeed 'Blocker'. However, it may be that no-one in their right mind would ever do such an odd thing and that it is more important to the clients that we fix more pressing things, which may be 'Minor' or even 'Trivial' severity such as a typo on the main page.

      In the same vein, none of the available priorities really seem appropriate to requests for improvements such as this one.

      So my suggestion is to have a set of Priorities from 'Urgent' to 'Yeah, whenever' and maybe assign the existing 'Severities' to bugs only. How on Earth to retro-fit that into existing databases would then no doubt be cause for discussion!

      What do you reckon?

      Mike

            Loading...
            IMPORTANT: JAC is a Public system and anyone on the internet will be able to view the data in the created JAC tickets. Please don’t include Customer or Sensitive data in the JAC ticket.
            Uploaded image for project: 'Jira Data Center'
            1. Jira Data Center
            2. JRASERVER-886

            A Jira 'Priority' is really 'Severity' - could we specify a Severity and a Priority instead?

              • Icon: Suggestion Suggestion
              • Resolution: Fixed
              • None
              • None
              • We collect Jira feedback from various sources, and we evaluate what we've collected when planning our product roadmap. To understand how this piece of feedback will be reviewed, see our Implementation of New Features Policy.

                We've been using Jira for a while and generally find it the Mutt's nuts. One thing which has never quite seemed right though is the assignment of priorities to Tasks, Improvements and New Features. We think it's because the priorities in Jira are really severities of bugs and not priorities at all. It would be great to be able to assign priorities to issues that really do relate to the amount of time that should be spent on them.

                For example, if there is some corner case whereby a very specific set of actions can cause the system crash, the severity of the bug is indeed 'Blocker'. However, it may be that no-one in their right mind would ever do such an odd thing and that it is more important to the clients that we fix more pressing things, which may be 'Minor' or even 'Trivial' severity such as a typo on the main page.

                In the same vein, none of the available priorities really seem appropriate to requests for improvements such as this one.

                So my suggestion is to have a set of Priorities from 'Urgent' to 'Yeah, whenever' and maybe assign the existing 'Severities' to bugs only. How on Earth to retro-fit that into existing databases would then no doubt be cause for discussion!

                What do you reckon?

                Mike

                        mike@atlassian.com Mike Cannon-Brookes
                        8397740ea872 Michael Phillimore-Brown
                        Votes:
                        20 Vote for this issue
                        Watchers:
                        20 Start watching this issue

                          Created:
                          Updated:
                          Resolved:

                            mike@atlassian.com Mike Cannon-Brookes
                            8397740ea872 Michael Phillimore-Brown
                            Votes:
                            20 Vote for this issue
                            Watchers:
                            20 Start watching this issue

                              Created:
                              Updated:
                              Resolved: