Re: What Is To Be Done [or, 2.0.0/2.0.1 keyword/pseudo-milestones and the punt/no-punt list]

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

One last clarification (basically) since I fear the last may have been
too big picture:

*GNOME2.0.0 keyword: Big Honking Serious Bugs.
*GNOME2.0.1 keyword: Bugs we should fix soon but that shouldn't block
release.
*GNOME2.0.x keyword: nice features, etc., etc.

If you're assigning bugs to a milestone without asking me first, ask
yourself a simple question: 'Would I block GNOME's entire release for
this bug.' 

If the answer is 'no' then think really, really hard about putting it
anywhere except GNOME2.0.1. And if it isn't already a
High/Urgent/Immediate bug, then think really, really, really hard about
putting it anywhere except GNOME2.0.x.

Hope this makes things clearer.
Luis

On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 05:26, Luis Villa wrote:
> So, I've migrated Havoc's punt/no-punt list into bugzilla. The
> only sane way to do this in milestones; unfortunately we have no
> cross-GNOME way of doing milestones [as discussed in
> http://lists.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2002-April/msg00433.html] So as discussed in that email, I've added GNOME2.0.0, GNOME2.0.1, and GNOME2.0.x keywords that will function as pseudo-milestones. Please learn and love these milestones :) If you're committed to 2.0.0, they should be your guidelines from here on out, I hope.
> 
> The good news: Only about 25 2.0.0 can't punts remain from Havoc's
> list.[1] 
> 
> The bad news: I'm not entirely sure where Havoc got his 'complete list'
> from (probably me somehow :/ but it was missing more than 100 GNOME2
> [Immediate|Urgent|High] bugs. :/ So even with extremely conservative
> marking of 2.0.0 bugs the list is now at more than 60 bugs, plus more
> that maintainers have added themselves.
> 
> The list <drum roll here>:
> 
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&keywords=GNOME2.0.0%2C+triaged&keywords_type=allwords
> 
> This is it! The one, true, list. The list of remaining 2.0.0 bugs,
> mainly from Havoc's list, with feedback from Sander and myself, plus
> things added from the bugs Havoc's list didn't cover. 
> 
> Note that at least one maintainer has already increased their list of
> 2.0.0 bugs by using the new milestones. This was /on the understanding
> that they personally/ will be able to fix them all in time. I'd urge
> that other maintainers do this only after very, very carefully
> considering the implications. Ideally other maintainers will do it only
> after fixing all of their other 2.0.0 bugs first. Doing it now runs the
> risk of introducing serious confusion between personal goals and
> community/project goals and risking that confusion is not something I
> think is a particularly good idea right now. So, basically, I'd hope
> they not do it at all :) 
> 
> This is the list of bugs punted to 2.0.1 for now:
> 
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&keywords=GNOME2.0.1%2C+triaged&keywords_type=allwords
> 
> Comments: 
> 
> Obviously, all of these are basically subject to maintainer review: if
> you're a maintainer and you don't think something can or should be done,
> or you really think it should be 2.0.0 despite it being marked 2.0.1,
> reassign it to another milestone, please, and add a comment on why.
> However, please take the community's judgment (as expressed via this
> list and comments via bugzilla) into account; for 2.0 big-picture as
> expressed by this list and the new schedule can and should mean a lot. 
> 
> Also obviously, anyone can come to the table *via bugzilla* and add
> their two cents as to why something should or should not be part of
> 2.0.0. HOWEVER: don't say 'I won't use 2.0.0 if it still has this bug.'
> Be as explicit as possible as to why it will impact not just you but a
> large number of people, and as to exactly how it effects your workflow.
> If you don't, you're likely to get ignored. Similarly, don't post your
> comments to this list unless they are meta comments; if they aren't in
> bugzilla they are likely [I hope] to be ignored. 
> 
> Final note: obviously, this is a very top-down method of doing things.
> I'm not a big fan of that. But I really think that at this point in the
> process we all need to set aside some of our personal issues and solve
> an agreed upon set of bugs. I hope this list /is/ that agreed upon set
> of 'what must be done for 2.0.0' and can serve as our guideline for that
> in the next month.
> Luis
> 
> [1]I'm sorry, but I didn't find/start the 'we need directional
> keybindings in pager' nor one for the fonts/appearance capplet problems,
> though there are lots of individual bugs about the second part. Havoc,
> if you want to open bugs about those in the appropriate places after
> talking with those maintainers, please do.