On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:41:24PM -0700, Dan Quinlan wrote: > (b) there is no concept of "all bugs" any more, only "critical bugs" > (d) critical bugs had better darn well show up in red in my bugzilla > screen (that is, "Severity" field set to "critical") or the bug > doesn't count as critical.
I'm not sure I like these. a bug is a bug and should be squashed as such. the only exclusion that comes to mind off hand is bug which can't be reproduced -- if it can't be reproduced, it can't be debugged, so it can't be fixed; then the ticket would just stick around which is bad. > I believe tying everything together in the schedule is adding delays and > making it easier to slip more and more stuff into the release. We never > had to lock-step things before, we just reviewed the open bugs at each > stage of the simple schedule and decided whether or not we were ready to > proceed to the next step or if we had to cut a new pre/rc release. It's > how most open source projects work. Assigning dates far out in the > future is pretty pointless and just makes things frustrating. Well, just remember, another release-related issue is the ASF and our status as a project. There's still the Trademark (haven't heard from Sander for a while), we need/want to get out of incubator status, we need to deal with using the ASF system for releases, etc... > Finally, since we're not in R-T-C mode yet, I'm calling this the 3.0.0 > schedule. If you want to veto... ... and some people thought my schedule was aggressive. ;) -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "You can't run sausage backwards through a meat grinder and end up with a whole pig." - Tim Peoples talking about the irreversability of UNIX password encoding
pgpBMmOHHYXDT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
