Alexey Petrenko wrote:
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date and the RI is outdated.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.
Yes, they should all be investigated so we can make a determination for M5.
Regards,
Tim
