-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Schulz writes: > I would like to suggest that having a Target Milestone of Future for a > bug is harmful. It was probably necessary when you were trying to get > 3.0.0 out and you were not sure what the next verson number would be, > but now it seems to be a way for a bug to fall into a black hole. It > seems that if a bug is not grabbed by someone within a few hours of > being submitted, it is lost. It's a manageability thing. We don't have someone who can sit there continually reprioritising bugs :( I suggest that if you have bugs with TM set to Future, and you think they're implementable sooner ;) -- feel free to post a comment and pipe up. In particular, getting a patch that implements the feature is a *lot* more likely to get a bug a solid milestone. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFB4sycMJF5cimLx9ARAkTQAJ9rgwfZb2/vfyt9fjkNc5McdUdRCwCgifvP 0o8X6l0A6wBmqck+mU2Hh/E= =b1up -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
