What he said. +1
On 23/05/2011 6:02 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
On May 23, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
So, taking [Bug 6426] and [Bug 6544] as examples, what is
a sentiment about such? Just close after the change has been
commited to trunk for some time, or should we follow a voting
procedure for each open problem report?
First off, you're very good about opening bugs for large changes, thank you. I
actually think that some changes are small enough that they don't even need a
bug, but don't mind them because it can be a handy place to review what is
happening in the tree.
When a bug is opened for a change and the the change is committed and then the bug closed that
generates at least 3 different email events about the change. IMO this is plenty of visibility to
a change and plenty of opportunity for someone to stand up and say "Hey I've got an
issue" or "Hey did you think about doing it this way."
So, there is no need to keep these bugs open, go ahead and close them and be
done.
Now, if it's a change that you would like to see backported that is another
matter, but I think we all know that use case.
I would also take this opportunity to argue that we backport far too many
changes. I think that one of the reasons that newer releases aren't as
forthcoming is because all the new stuff is getting backported to the older
releases so there is no real need. Personally I would like to limit backporting
to just critical and security type issues and keep trunk moving forward, and of
course producing more releases.
Ok, just my $.02.
Michael
