On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I'd like to raise the idea of resurrecting the "blocker" tag on > redmine. I understand the reasons behind its original removal, and > fully agree that the new process is working much better. > > BUT... > > We have two extremely serious issues open against QGIS 3.0, which I > think SHOULD block the release. These are: > > https://issues.qgis.org/issues/17985 : Huge memory leak with NULL > attributes in Python > https://issues.qgis.org/issues/17916 : Crashes and instability with Qt > 5.10 > > I don't think we can proceed with any 3.0 release while these two > issues are unsolved. > > That's why I'd like to see the blocker tag brought back, but with it > actually BLOCKING the release (vs the previous definition, which > ultimately just meant "hey please fix this because it impacts me a > lot!"). And I'd like to see it highly curated to avoid users tagging > their own pet bugs with it. > > Thoughts? > > I think that a carefully used BLOCKER tag makes a lot of sense. There are some bugs that we should definitely not be part of a release or this will seriously impact user's trust in QGIS both as a software and as a community. I also suggest that the ones who take care of the bug queue (kind of QA managers) should be in charge of managing and lifting the blocker tag. -- Alessandro Pasotti w3: www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
