There is quite a bit of variance in the bugs that were nominated in
previous development cycles. Therefore, I believe your statement is too
broad. Individual bugs should be nominated on their own merits
regardless of their nomination status in prior cycles. The nomination
status may help you find interesting bugs, but does not replace the need
for thoughtful evaluation before nomination to nsBeta1.
Steve
Blake Ross wrote:
> It seems like bugs that were nominated and denied for rtm will probably want
> to be nominated for beta1, no?
>
> --Blake
>
> "Steve Elmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The whiteboard seems safe enough since those notations are no longer
>> meaningful. If you can hold off on the keywords for a little while that
>> would give me a chance to see if anyone is still using them internal to
>> Netscape. I'm expecting that they'll be no-spam removed at some point
>> if you can wait for that.
>>
>> Anyone depending on this information - please reply to this email before
>> 1/5/01 and describe your dependency and timeframe so I can collate and
>> establish a date for removal. The decision will be made on the
>> information available on 1/5/01.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>>> Is it ok to remove old nsbetaX keywords and [nsbetaX-+need info] flags
>>
> in
>
>>> statusfields. As I go through bugs and nominating for mozillax.x
>>
> milstones I
>
>>> sometimes comes across bugs with rather bloted status- and
>>
> keywordfields, is
>
>>> it ok to do some cleaning up at the same time?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonas Sicking
>>>
>>>
>>>
