On 6/21/12 12:40 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: > I wonder if any one can help to update this criteria to 3.4.1 wiki ?
I am not sure what you mean, do you mean to add a link on the wiki page to the definition of showstopper? > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Feature+Planning by the way I moved this page under Releases -> AOO 3.4.1 but the link still works The idea was to reduce the redundant version number in each page name, see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots But as I have noticed afterwards it doesn't really work because the page itself is under OOOUSERS directly. I thought it would be saved hierarchical as in mediawiki :-( > It was my favorite, but I'm on vacation now and difficult to update the wiki > from my phone... enjoy your vacation Juergen > > - Simon > > > 发自我的 iPhone > > 在 2012-6-21，7:54，De Bin Lei <[email protected]> 写道： > >> Juergen, thank for your comments, now the criteria is more clear, thanks >> again. >> >> 2012/6/21 Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]> >> >>> On 6/21/12 5:51 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>>> I think safety is of high value. >>>> >>>> That includes security issues and also data loss/corruption. The last >>> includes crashers that result in unrecoverable loss of work. Hidden loss >>> of work and document corruption that does not appear until the document is >>> opened later is particularly serious. >>>> >>> >>> >>> We used in general the following criteria (details where we are more >>> less based on can be foud under [2]) >>> >>> - crashes (including data loss/corruption) >>> - security fixes >>> - regressions >>> >>> I would also include >>> - memory leaks >>> when a fix is available and it is well tested that nothing else breaks >>> >>> >>> - maintenance issues (like updating reference type library, version >>> strings, images, ...) >>> >>> >>> A micro release like 3.4.1 is only for fixing serious problems and not >>> to introduce new features. Excepting new translations. >>> >>> Minor releases, eg. 3.5, can include any kind of fix, features and >>> improvements. Bigger UI changes should be discussed and probably better >>> included in a major release. >>> >>> See also [1] and especially [2] >>> >>> We should update these pages on demand to reflect our guideline how we >>> want handle this in the future. A common understanding is of course >>> important here. >>> >>> >>> Juergen >>> >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria >>> [2] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Stopper >>> >>> >>>> - Dennis >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: dongjun zong [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 20:31 >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]What is the criteria for 3.4.1 release blocker? >>>> >>>> I think high severity regression issue, common usage function related >>> issue >>>> should be considered as release blocker. >>>> >>>> 2012/6/21 Ji Yan <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> From my point of view, security and high usability issue should be set >>> as >>>>> blocker >>>>> >>>>> 2012/6/21 debin lei <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, All >>>>>> I noticed that there are some issues, which are proposed as 3.4.1 >>> release >>>>>> blocker recently. However, I am not sure what is the criteria for the >>>>>> release blocker? >>>>>> Is it regression or impact serious ? Or high benefit to risk ratio from >>>>> dev >>>>>> view ? >>>>>> I think maybe consider more things, but not sure. >>>>>> So if you can give your criteria and discuss here to make the things >>> more >>>>>> clear will be very helpful. >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards. >>>>>> Lei De Bin >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards >>> Lei De Bin >>> >>> >>> >>>
