2011/3/31 Sandro Santilli <[email protected]> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 04:35:10PM +0000, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > We *should* fix all important and blocker bugs for a release. Making > > everything a blocker basically ignores the Important value completely. > > If we *should* then why we didn't ? > Who should check that it gets done ? > > I belive "Important" has a well defined role of being something > that has to be considered for becoming a "Blocker" during a > release process. > > That is: when _all_ blockers were fixed, you can check Important > to see if you want to fix anything else before the release. > > You don't want to go fishing in the Normal pool, do you ? > We currently have: > - 180 from Wish to Normal > - 14 Importants > - 1 Blocker > - 0 Security >
Rob told in the channel about a CVE error report: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/45102/info Tempary files > > Doesn't look like we're making "everything a blocker". > > Mind you: the only blocker is not the one we're pulling hairs on, > but a blocker from 0.8.9 that was downgraded to Important for the > release and raised back to Blocker for next one. > > Also, note that among the 14 Importants [1] there's a single one with > "crash" in the summary, and is the one you just downgraded. > > [1] http://alturl.com/56zkz > > So, what about adapting to the common practice rather than dictating > a new order ? > > --strk; > > () Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer > /\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html > > _______________________________________________ > Gnash-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev > -- Maximiliano Augusto Castañón Araneda Santiago, Chile Linux user # 394821 Skype: maximi89 MSN: [email protected] XMPP/Jabber: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
