Thanks for your prompt feed-back, Kathey! Comments inlined. Kathey Marsden <[email protected]> writes:
>> Doc: This is technical severity and not really a priority (see Urgency >> field for that property). Think of these values as severity 1 (trivial; >> least severe) to severity 5 (most severe: blocker). > Perhaps it is just what I am used to but I tend to think of a Severity > 1 as a blocker down to Severity 5 as trivial. I agree, will reword that. >> Comment: What is the relationship between this field and High Value >> Fix flag? Could it subsume High Value Fix? >> >> > I think it could, but there are fairly hard issues like DERBY-700 and > DERBY-1433 which may not have a high urgency with regard to a specific > release but are very important because they are ticking time bombs or > bombs that have already gone off. These issues might have a higher > urgency for 10.6 than 10.5.2 but development is going on for both and > we don't have a release manager for 10.6 yet, so how should they be > evaluated in terms of Urgency? Good point. Unless we can come up with a way to encode this, I suggest we keep the flag for now.I guess what we'd really need is two urgency fields, one for the upcoming release and one for trunk.. If that sounds unpalatable, I suggest we keep the flag for now? >> >> > It would be good to refer to the Wiki page regarding making release note: > http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ReleaseNoteProcess#head-8bfe22837d50a10f61f410c927336eabc682b62f +1, Will do. > I think "Seen in production" is useful. +1. Dag
