Re: GNOMEVER2.3?

[Andrew Sobala <andrew sobala net>]

On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 19:27, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 14:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Le 18 Nov 2002 14:00:34 -0500, Luis Villa a ecrit :
> > 
> > > I was going through the list of versioned-but-not-bugsquaded bugs[1]
> > > and realized there are a lot of enhancements marked 2.0, which clearly
> > > is not correct ;) and 2.1 isn't _really_ correct either at this point.
> > > I know someone requested a 2.3 TARGET a while back, and I (stupidly)
> > > more or less ignored it. Consider this an apology :) Should I add it
> > > now? anyone object?
> > > Luis
> > 
> > No objection here. It will definitely be useful. Will it be TARGET2.3.0
> > or TARGET2.3.x or TARGET2.4.0 ? I vote for TARGET2.4.0 :)
> 
> I was thinking features (which is mostly what I'm looking at today)
> should be TARGET2.3.0; bugs should be TARGET2.4.0- thoughts?

TARGET2.3.0 and TARGET2.4.0 both make sense, but only for important bugs
that need to be fixed by a release. For enhancements etc., I would have
expected "GNOMEVER2.3" to be the most sensible keyword. But we need to
define these precisely.

GNOMEVER2.1 - bug exists in GNOME2.1, and can be fixed in GNOME2.1.
GNOMEVER2.2 - doesn't exist, shouldn't exist and has no useful meaning
to any bugs in bugzilla at the moment. (Since enhancements cannot be
addressed in a stable series, they shouldn't get this keyword.)
GNOMEVER2.3 - bug exists in GNOME2.3 (so all enhancements that haven't
been addressed yet will definitely be still open in 2.3 and can get this
keyword) and can be fixed in GNOME2.3.

And TARGETs are the usual bugsquad recommendations to be fixed by a
release, but I can't see why we would need to target anything this
early. It's not the job of the bugsquad AFAIK to target enhancements
anyway.

What do you think?

-- 
Andrew Sobala <andrew sobala net>