Gervase Markham wrote:
>>What I'm missing here are good, old, normal bugs.
>>
>That's because this isn't what this exercise is about.
>
?
Are you saying that it doesn't matter, how many bugs 1.0 has?
>>It is very hard to measure them. My personal opinion is that *every* bug
>>in Bugzilla must be fixed in 1.0,
>>
You cutted: 'unless we decide not to fix it.'
>Then you'll need a new numbering scheme for when we pass 0.9.9.
>
Oh, that one's easy: 0.10.0 comes after 0.9.9. That's why we have the 2
points.
>There are loads of bugs in Bugzilla which are RFEs, wrong, invalid,
>already fixed, or any other number of things.
>
RFEs don't count. INVALID ones are easily determined and closed.
>We probably don't have
>enough QA people to comb through them in an ordered fashion, checking each
>one.
>
Why am I filing them, then?
>As people have said, if all the bugs have to be fixed, we'll never ship.
>
I didn't say, we must fix every bug. But we should *know* which ones we
don't fix.
>>his policy makes sure that we look at each filed bug and we
>>
>Who's this "we"? :-)
>
"The people making Mozilla work." QA (Mozilla and Netscape), programmers.
>Release notes include things like "Mozilla does this correctly, but
>no-one else does, so you'll need to do X", and "Software Y has a bug which
>means it doesn't work", and so on. The release notes will never be one
>page.
>
That's compatibility. You can easily split this out.
