Re: 1.6 release -- where I'd like us to go from here.

[Rob Browning]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

> current state "fixed: Marius Vollmer <address@hidden>, 2002-02-22"
> does not address the problems of the bug reporter, whose
> responsibilities in the process include closing it.  that hasn't
> happened yet.
>
> calling this bug (fixed or not) not release-critical means a release
> is valued for its event and not its consequence.  in this case
> consequence is that people for whom (ice-9 optargs) worked before
> w/o problems now have problems if they use this release.  probably
> release-critical tags should not be used to gate a release, but
> should only be applied once given some criteria.

I'm not sure I follow the the last sentence, but IMO I don't see a
problem with having marked this bug release critical when it looked
like it could actually be fixed (and should be if it could be).  Now
that it doesn't look like it should be fixed, it's no longer a bug.
Perhaps "fixed" is the wrong term.  Would "closed" or "resolved" be
better?

How would Steve Tell close the bug, and why would he be responsible
for that?  He reported a problem and the guile developers examined the
issue and determined its resolution.  Once that's done, the bug is
resolved, closed, whatever.

In the case of bound?, it was not quite right, was documented in NEWS
as something you shouldn't expect to stick around, and now it's going
away.  IMO, after we make sure we have an appropriate NEWS eulogy, we
can forget about it.

> just done:
> - moved the mailing list scanning subtree to Eventually
> - moved "write render-bugs, add to mscripts or guile-tools" to
>   Eventually (will documented "1mo timeout guideline" shortly)
> - replaced it w/ "write stub render-bugs" and did it.

What's the "1mo timeout guideline"?

> so now the only two items are to run render bugs at the right time in
> the release process (why don't you claim these?).

OK, will do.

> the gist of these efforts is really just to capture some of the writings
> that you've recently done (and are now doing) wrt release process "in
> general".  if you think the writings that you have or are imminently
> about to checkin cover the relationships between release and bugs, and
> release and stability (authoritatively), why not claim these tasks and
> either use excerpts from the writings to organize those thoughts, or
> reshape the tasks so that your writings fulfill their spirit.

OK, as I mentioned in the prev msg, I'll see if I can get this done.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD