a bug is a bug and should be squashed as such.
I'm not sure what you mean in this context. "A bug is a bug" says that we don't arbitrarily close a bug just because it is not critical. But as I see it the choice is to take the time to fix it before 3.0 release or defer it to 3.0.1 or 3.1. I suppose that we can use the target milestone for 3.0 in the same sense that Daniel is using the label "critical", but he does have a point that if we are that close to a 3.0 release we should only target for 3.0 those bugs that are important enough to call "critical".
That said, we should allow the argument that an otherwise minor bug that will be really annoying to users and make the 3.0 version look bad to people and is obviously easy to fix can be labeled "critical". In other words, a bug can be critical because it would embarrass us to release 3.0 with it.
-- sidney
