Re: Priority-Regression policy

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 07:34:37PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On 2009-11-29, Graham Percival wrote:
> > What's the feeling amongst developers about what should be ranked
> > as priority-Regression (and thus stop a release) ?  In particular,
> > should *everything* that used to work -- even if it was by
> > accident? -- be ranked a Regression?
> 
> Maybe we could add labels indicating which release an issue blocks?

The previous policy, which I assume stands, is that anything
ranked Priority-Regression is a "release blocker".  IIRC, at one
point this even blocked unstable releases.

> > I don't particularly mind which way we decide, but I'd like it to
> > be consistent, and I'm going to insist that if something is
> > Priority-Regression, it blocks a release.
> 
> IMO, regressions from 2.13 should get first priority and should block
> 2.14, but other regressions should be considered on a case-by-case
> basis.

I'm not opposed to this, although if we want to go this route, I
propose *removing* the Priority-Regression label.  We could then
use High, Medium, Low, Postponed.  Regressions would then be
High-priority by default, but developers could lower it if the
regression was due to an architecture change, or if it only worked
by accident originally.

Cheers,
- Graham