Ú GP HP en full full full y Ruff última RIP de de clash Royale
El ene. 30, 2017 8:11 PM, "Nicolai Hess" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > 2017-01-30 15:23 GMT+01:00 Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Nicolai, >> >> I'm checking all current issues marked for Pharo 6 and testing if they >> are new or the problem already existed in Pharo 5. According to it I'm >> marking it and for most cases (but not all) I'm decreasing the priority to >> "Fix if Time". >> I understand you but look at the priorities as priorities for the >> releasing process. Of course a lot such issues should be fixed and if you >> think they must be fixed for the upcoming release, increase the priority. >> Currently the assignment of priorities is on issue reporters and they use >> different personal scales. This way we can unify that a little bit. >> >> After finishing of the marking I wanted to ask people to think again >> about priorities of the reported issues. But If we already made a release >> with some issue, it probably means it is not extremely important. >> > > I am not talking about "extremely important" issues. If it is an issue > that "must be fixed for this release", I would use the "show stopper" > priority. > Now if some uses used his time to report an issue, say one as priority > "fix if time" and another one "must fix", now we put all this issues to > "fix if time", don't you think we loose some valuable information ? > If this issues won't be fixed in this release (because we don't have > enough man power) we can always put them on "Later" instead of "Pharo 6.0" > For me, it makes a difference if some issues occure in some situations, > where we can maybe work around, and can be fixed "if time" or if an issues > is a bug > that must be fixed just because the functionality is just not working > anymore. > > >> >> This step needs to be done anyway or we will never finish the release. To >> do it now gives us more time to focus on really important things. We want >> every new release to be better that release before so it makes sense to >> firstly look at new problems we created. >> > > I don't get this point. Some issues were just introduced in the pharo 5.0. > So instead of seeing this issues as "must fix", we decrease the priority as > "fix if time", so we can focus on the issues we introduced in Pharo 6.0? > > > >> Cheers, >> -- Pavel >> >> >> 2017-01-30 14:07 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess <[email protected]>: >> >>> For example: >>> 19457 >>> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19457/Scrolling-Versionner-configuration-list-is-very-slow> >>> Scrolling Versionner configuration list is very slow >>> 18778 >>> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18778/FileList-View-as-does-not-work> >>> FileList "View as" does not work >>> 19221 >>> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19221/Rub-Find-And-Replace-can-not-search-for> >>> Rub Find And Replace can not search for "?" >>> >>> For me, these are issues that "must fix" and not "Fix If Time". Most >>> issues are only >>> fixed "if someone has the time to do it" regardless how serious they are. >>> Fixed if time looks like , we can live without this as we did since the >>> last >>> release, but actually we are just used to accept some bugs and >>> regressions because >>> we know we are to small or to few develoeper to actually fix this issues. >>> I don't see any value in downgrading the priority - else we could just >>> discard any priority. >>> >>> >>> nicolai >>> >> >> >
