Well, I'd hate to loose the distinction between 1.0-Candidate bugs
and Future bugs. But perhaps we can use Priority to draw that
distinction.
Mimi
On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Grant Baillie wrote:
Sure, sounds reasonable ... there's an existing "Chandler 2.0"
target for bugs like that (although I think the only bug assigned
to it is the master rearchitecture bug).
--Grant
On 10 Jul, 2008, at 13:41, Mimi Yin wrote:
I was asking Jeffrey about a performance bug in the 0.7future pile
(which I am cleaning up) and I wondered aloud if it might not be a
good idea to have an re-architecture target. In other words, start
flagging bugs that should really be fixed on the new code base as
opposed to current code base. I imagine the performance bugs would
fall into this category. There are also a bunch of UI refresh
issues that might apply as well.
Going through such an exercise might help us get a grip on how to
scope re-architecture work in the coming months.
Thoughts?
Mimi
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
