trinity-devel@lists.pearsoncomputing.net

Message: previous - next
Month: December 2014

Re: [trinity-devel] TDE R14 Hard Freeze

From: Slávek Banko <slavek.banko@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 02:58:56 +0100
On Friday 12 of December 2014 02:38:37 Michele Calgaro wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 04:55 AM, Slávek Banko wrote:
> > Therefore, my suggestion is to use meta-bugs 2246 and 2247 in exactly the
> > same manner as was used meta-bug 2014. And 2233 will be wasted.
>
> That is the option I had considered initially as well, but I was looking
> for a better way to let users suggest what bugs are more important for
> them.
> I think we could do something like this:
>
> 1) initial bug request from users goes into bug 2233
> 2) when we(developers) analyze the bug (which could be several weeks/months
> later if there are many bugs in the list), we decide in which release we
> should fix it and we move the bug to one of the other metabugs, even if
> still open.
> 3) when the bug is fixed, we close it. 
>
> What do you think? Otherwise if you think it is wiser that just
> us(developers) choose what bug to fix for each release, we can just ignore
> bug 2233 and use bug 2246/2247 as we did with bug 2014.
>
> Cheers
>    Michele
>

Yes, that sounds good to me. Perhaps it would be good to amend the 
descriptions that meta-bugs are not just for fixed bugs.

Over time we will see what will be important bug 2233. Theoretically, users 
want to have fixed "all" reported bugs in "some next version". So, they could 
be tempted to put into 2233 completely all reported bugs. But it would do 
dubious sense to bug 2233. Practice will show it.

-- 
Slávek