Ben Bucksch wrote:
> >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.
You may want to lobby for the bug-tracking infrastructure enhancement:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75172
It is essentially a request for creating an additional structure layer on top
of the masses of bugs. It would allow bugs to be more easily organized by
features, like the current "turbo mode meta bug", i.e. on a much finer-grained
level than components.
Each node in this additional layer (roughly corresponding to a "feature")
could have its own quality status information, maybe with values from "feature
request" to "ready for mozilla-1.0". Then for each mozilla milestone release a
list of feature/status pairs could easily be generated that made it clear
which parts are still "experimental" and which ones are "stable" (e.g. like
MySQL releases do, see http://www.mysql.com/doc/S/t/Stability.html ).
Since feature development will be possible again after the 2.14 security
release (which we may be able to see by the end of this month), it may indeed
make a difference if enough people agree that this enhancement is important
for preparing a mozilla-1.0 release.
Andreas
