Scott Putterman wrote: > So if you really believe that all of the normal and higher footprint > bugs need to be fixed, then you will have to trade off some place.
No, I didn't mean that. In fact, I don't even know, how good/bad Mailnews *itself* is in footprint. > My suggestion is to look through the list of nominated bugs and just > start adding them to the meta bugs (or better yet, create a mail 1.0 > meta bug and add it to the main 1.0 meta bug) when they are considered > necessary for 1.0. If we go for meta-bugs, I'd suggest one for each "criteria". those can be added to the relevant mozilla1.0 meta-bugs and to a Mailnews 1.0 meta-bug. (Personally, I think that these meta-bugs cause too much spam, esp considering that we have keywords already, but mozilla.org seems to go for meta-bugs, so it makes sense to do the same.) But how do we determine, which bugs get added to the meta-bugs? If we allow everyone to add to these bugs without restrictions, they will be (almost) redundant to the mozilla1.0 keyword. > Then, we just need to find people to work on them. That would be your part *g* /me hides > Regarding GNKSA, I don't think it's necessary, but you probably knew > that given that Netscape has shipped a few times without it being > fulfilled. What do you and others think about a "suggest" or "can" fix? That would imply that nobody later argues that a GNKSA MUST-fix should not be fixed / checked in and that reviews are done reasonably fast. (Someone on slashdot told something about "MoSCoW" - bugs can be priotisized by calling them "Must/Should/Can/Wont fix".)
