Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dwylbot epics may not need to be time estimated #138

Open
samhstn opened this issue Jul 17, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

Dwylbot epics may not need to be time estimated #138

samhstn opened this issue Jul 17, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@samhstn
Copy link
Member

samhstn commented Jul 17, 2017

An overarching epic which will take a number of days or weeks which is put in-progress should not need to be time estimated (we don't even have a time label for this)

@nelsonic
Copy link
Member

nelsonic commented Jul 17, 2017

For now this is the best course of action. (if label == "epic" do: :no_time_estimation_required_)
(we can get fancy with reading the list of issues in the description & adding up the estimates later!)

@iteles
Copy link
Member

iteles commented Jul 17, 2017

Agreed 👍
This is an example.

@ghost ghost modified the milestone: Backlog Aug 9, 2017
@ghost ghost added the priority-2 label Aug 9, 2017
@ghost ghost assigned naazy and unassigned SimonLab Aug 9, 2017
@ghost ghost modified the milestones: Sprint 2, Backlog Aug 9, 2017
@ghost ghost removed the discuss label Aug 9, 2017
samhstn pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 1, 2017
epics do not need to be time estimated #138
@naazy naazy assigned ghost and unassigned naazy Sep 1, 2017
@jammur jammur unassigned ghost Dec 14, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants