Re: <sigh> I want keywords to make sense to someone other than me :/

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 17:10, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 17:09, Heath Harrelson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 14:48, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > GNOMEVER2.3 is described as:
> > > 
> > >         Keyword that should be used for all bugs which are present in
> > >         GNOME Version 2.3. At this point (the 2.1 development cycle)
> > >         this should be used only for feature requests that cannot be
> > >         added for 2.1/2.2 because of the feature freeze.
> > 
> > I think that this is confusing merely because it's counter-intuitive. 
> > While GNOMEVER* usually means "present in version foo of GNOME," here
> > we're using a GNOMEVER keyword to say "this bug will *still* be
> > unimplemented in version foo, let's take a look at it then."  This is
> > the same problem we had when we marked 2.0 feature requests that hadn't
> > gotten implemented GNOMEVER2.1.
> > 
> > Doing this makes sense, but it's going to take people a little while to
> > get used to it, since it doesn't fit the heuristic most people are using
> > to set keywords.
> 
> Fair enough, and in fact pretty correct. Alternate suggestions? 

I should note that the current versioning carries some overhead; most
(but not all) GNOMEVER2.0 bugs are also in GNOMEVER2.1. How we're going
to 'solve' that overlap problem is not something I'm sure we have a
solution to.

It bears repeating that what I did for GNOME1.4->GNOME2.0[1] was able to
gloss over a lot of these issues that we're now running into from
GNOME2.0->2.2. That's why I don't always have answers, and why I
definitely want advice from others on these topics.

Luis

[1]Or evo0.x->evo1.0 or mozilla 0.x->1.0