5 ms·

It's not that similar at all. In priority inversion, the task of choosing the colour of the bike shed is essential to complete the whole reactor (even if it's u

by dozzie 10y ago

It's not that similar at all. In priority inversion, the task of choosing the colour of the bike shed is essential to complete the whole reactor (even if it's unimportant which colour would that be). In bikeshedding, both tasks can be carried out independently. Priority inversion happens when a task of high priority waits for a low-priority task to finish, then the low-priority task has its priority artificially and temporarily increased. Moreover, bikeshedding is not a term from technical ground, but from psychology. It talks about what people want instead of how computer system works.

CalChris 10y ago
Bikeshedding, in its current usage, stems from the FreeBSD mailing list. It is not from psychology. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed.html http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed.html In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality Parkinson himself is a historian and not a psychologist.
- dozzie 10y ago
  > In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. But it's a matter of psychology of the organization members, not a technical issue. On the other hand, priority inversion is purely technical thing. And then, the reactor could easily be built without bike shed finished. The two tasks are independent. Inversion of priorities happens precisely because the high priority task cannot be finished without the low priority task. Thus, both the field the term operates on and the term's mechanics are completely different. > With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight. And that's about the only aspect of the two terms that is similar. Both talk about two objects with vastly different (nominal) importance.

by dozzie 10y ago

CalChris 10y ago

Bikeshedding, in its current usage, stems from the FreeBSD mailing list. It is not from psychology. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed.html http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed.html In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality Parkinson himself is a historian and not a psychologist.

dozzie 10y ago
> In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. But it's a matter of psychology of the organization members, not a technical issue. On the other hand, priority inversion is purely technical thing. And then, the reactor could easily be built without bike shed finished. The two tasks are independent. Inversion of priorities happens precisely because the high priority task cannot be finished without the low priority task. Thus, both the field the term operates on and the term's mechanics are completely different. > With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight. And that's about the only aspect of the two terms that is similar. Both talk about two objects with vastly different (nominal) importance.