[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-dev] Bugs severity

From: Maximi89
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Bugs severity
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:02:35 -0400

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

Rob told in the channel about a CVE error report:
Tempary files

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.


So, what about adapting to the common practice rather than dictating
a new order ?


 ()   Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer

Gnash-dev mailing list

Maximiliano Augusto Castañón Araneda
Santiago, Chile
Linux user # 394821

Skype: maximi89
MSN: address@hidden
XMPP/Jabber: address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]