Andrew McIntyre wrote: >On 3/31/06, David W. Van Couvering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I think notification is great. I don't understand why what you are >>suggesting should be "components" they really seem to me to make sense >>as checkboxes -- how are these "components" of the system? Andrew, can >>you explain? >> >> > >I had misunderstood Kathey's request earlier. I agree that checkboxes >for this behavior would be good to have to flag issues as regressive >behavior, with an additional checkbox for release notes impact, and >leaving the Regression Test Failure component specifically for test >failures. I'm wondering though, if "Existing Application Impact" is >perhaps redundant? In what situations would a behavior be a >regression, need specific mentioning in the release notes, and not >have an impact on existing applications? > > > It is the other way around. ":Existing Application Impact" is for things that are not regressions but rather intentional behaviour changes or fixes that might affect existing applications. An example might be a bug fix that made Derby comply with standard behaviour where it did not before. It may have existing application impact but is not a regression.
Kathey
