BTW, I would move this discussion to separate thread to get more community attention and opinions.
SY, Alexey 2008/2/9, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/2/7, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On 7 February 2008 at 15:48, "Alexey Petrenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > 2008/2/6, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On 2/7/08, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I would suggest to mark these issues as "must be fixed before M5" > > > > > since Harmony M5 should not be worse then M4. > > > > Why do you think these differences are so important? > > > Because these issues are regressions :) > > Alexey, I don't think that is fair. > Do not agree with this :) > > But > > Regressions are changes that affect > > things negatively and improvements are changes that affect things > > positively. Some of these may turn out to fall in the middle but many > > of them will turn out to be improvements - i.e. because they are up to > > date and the RI is outdated. > I'm fully agree with this. > > We have applications or internal/external test suite failures. And all > of this failures could be regressions or not. And we can not be fully > sure until we will investigate each case. > So if our next milestone build has new failures, does not matter on > applications or test suites, anyone can say that M5 is worse then M4. > And we could not reply anything on this because we just do not know > are these failures regressions, non-bug-differencies or even > improvements. > > Thus I vote to investigate all the new discovered issues caused by > this or any other commit and resolve them. > > SY, Alexey >
