Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
First, I'll echo Sidney's comments. Then, I'd just like to add that my criteria was pretty reasonable. I don't quite follow why this is an issue for you. We should have no problem moving the remaining non-critical bugs to a later milestone after the fact. If you want to discuss changing the cut-off to be slightly below critical, I'm relatively open to including "major" bugs as well, but not "normal" as that's the default. To paraphrase Sidney, if a bug is marked with a high severity (at least critical or perhaps at least major), then we don't absolutely need it in the release. > 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... Exactly my point. As far as getting out the release, stop worrying about things not impeding forward progress of the things in front of us. I'm still talking to Sander about the trademark and we have plenty of time to resolve or not resolve this before 3.0.0. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
