2011/3/31 Sandro Santilli
<address@hidden>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 04:35:10PM +0000, Rob Savoye wrote:
> We *should* fix all important and blocker bugs for a release. Making
> everything a blocker basically ignores the Important value completely.
If we *should* then why we didn't ?
Who should check that it gets done ?
I belive "Important" has a well defined role of being something
that has to be considered for becoming a "Blocker" during a
release process.
That is: when _all_ blockers were fixed, you can check Important
to see if you want to fix anything else before the release.
You don't want to go fishing in the Normal pool, do you ?
We currently have:
- 180 from Wish to Normal
- 14 Importants
- 1 Blocker
- 0 Security
Doesn't look like we're making "everything a blocker".
Mind you: the only blocker is not the one we're pulling hairs on,
but a blocker from 0.8.9 that was downgraded to Important for the
release and raised back to Blocker for next one.
Also, note that among the 14 Importants [1] there's a single one with
"crash" in the summary, and is the one you just downgraded.
[1] http://alturl.com/56zkz
So, what about adapting to the common practice rather than dictating
a new order ?
--strk;
() Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer
/\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html
_______________________________________________
Gnash-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev