On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 12:08 +1200, Doug Dixon wrote: > All > > I aim to get Squid-3.0.PRE4 released in four to six weeks' time. > > The list of bugs to be fixed in 3.0 is here: > http://tinyurl.com/f56qm > > This includes bugs that were discovered in 2.5 but which still need > fixing in 3.0. > > I am considering three options for setting the Squid-3.0.PRE4 release > criteria: > > ----- > > Option 1 - severity based > We release PRE4 when all the criticals and blockers have been fixed. > > Option 2 - hand-picked > We hand pick a fixed list of bugs which we think we can fix within a > reasonably short time. We release when they are all fixed. No other > bugs can enter the list once it is picked. > > Option 3 - time based > We release PRE4 on June 1, and fix whatever bugs we can until then > (blockers first). > > ----- > > Option 1 could leave us vulnerable to a never-ending flow of new > criticals/blockers. I understand something like this happened in the > past. Are we still vulnerable to this or has the real level of > serious bugs dropped to a quantifiable level yet? The benefit of this > option is that PRE4 "means" something positive about the level of > known defects. But if the cost is too high, e.g. we never get PRE4 > out, then I'm not prepared to do this. > > Options 2 and 3 have the benefit of having fixed criteria, but at the > cost of PRE4 not meaning much about its quality. E.g. why don't we > release PRE4 today? > > In principle I prefer Option 1, but if it's too risky then I'd go for > Option 3. > > Please could you reply to this email and vote for Option 1, 2 or 3 > with brief reason. > > And as Henrik says, if you've got new stuff in the pipeline, please > shout now. We just need to agree which PRE it goes into - whether 4 > or later.
2 or 3. I think 2 is better. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
