On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:51 AM >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [ACS41][QA] Please update status on blockers and critical bugs >>> for 4.1.0! >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi >>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> > Chip I think your query for defects is looking at "Affected Version" >>> > as 4.1 rather than "Fix Version" as 4.1 >>> > >>> > I had moved out some of the defects assigned to frank out to 4.2 since he >>> > is >>> on vacation and won't return in time for 4.1. They are still showing up in >>> your >>> list. >>> > >>> >>> How does who they are assigned to affect what version they are tracked for? >>> If it is a blocker (or critical) it doesn't stop being a blocker or >>> critical because >>> the person assigned is away. I didn't see a vacation notice which would have >>> been nice so that time sensitive bugs could be reassigned. >>> >>> --David >> >> [Animesh>] If someone else wants to pick up the defects that's fine, but if >> there is no else what do you do? Sudha was aware of these getting marked >> for 4.2. Next time on we should call these out separately on the list. >> > > Sudha being aware != community being aware (as much as we value her > contributions!). Please let's be sure to remember that we're an OSS > project here.
Agreed Regardless - if it's a blocker, that infers that we shouldn't ship in such a state. If we still want to ship, then we should be having that conversation on list, not playing games with the state of the release according to the bug tracker. The fact that such a change was unknown to the release manager is even more troubling. --David
