Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer at sun.com> writes:
> I just finished going through the P1-P3 bugs and doing some simple risk
> analysis (likelihood of introducing breakage, possibility of being
> harder than the initial estimate).
>
> I added 456 ("DbLookups nits") to the blocker list for the internal
> review. This was less about risk and more about fixing known problems
> that we'd just flag again in our internal review.
>
> The only other bugs that caught my eye were all Cadmium things:
>
> 356 cdm recommit needs to cope with the tags it may be trashing
> 418 git formatted hg diffs can lose copies/renames
> 464 ActiveList build doesn't consider one half of a working copy merge.
>
> Rich has a code review request out for 356, and he's asked me to review
> 464.
>
> Does 418 still need to be a stopper? Or can we just document it as a
> restriction?
I think it could be documented as a restriction, but other opinion is desired.
> Also, I'd been keeping Cadmium separate from the rest of the tools in
> terms of planning for reviews. Do we want to keep doing that? The list
> of open issues for Cadmium is small enough that maybe we should plan on
> reviewing it at the same time as everything else...?
Sounds good to me, the more people who look at it, the better.
-- Rich
