Re: bugs -> release milestone policy

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 10:12, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 15:01, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Detailed responses to both emails shortly, but how does the keyword
> > change sound:
> > 
> > current keyword->new keyword
> > GNOME2.0->VER:GNOME2.0
> > GNOME2.0.[1|2|3]->MILE:GNOME2.0.[1|2|3]
> > 
> > GNOME2.1.x->VER:GNOME2.1
> > GNOME2.2.0->MILE:GNOME2.2.0
> > 
> > etc. sound? Would that make things more clear? [Early morning,
> > just-got-out-of-shower brainstorm.]
> > 
> > Luis
> 
> The way I see it, we need a set of "Is applicable to version x"
> keywords, and "Bug squad is keyword-milestoning this to version x"
> keywords. So how about:
> 
> BUG2.0.x = "Bug is in the 2.0.x series" (this is slowly losing
> usefulness now)
> BUG2.1.x = "Bug is in the 2.1.x series"

What I was trying to get with VER and MILE was to convey information
that's not currently obvious. 'BUG' doesn't tell us anything we don't
already know. :) 

That said, making the current GNOME2.0 be [something]2.0.x instead of
2.0 makes sense.

> GNOME2.2, GNOME2.2.0 etc = "Bug squad are keyword-milestoning this to
> version x"

Again, doesn't convey what that actually means- to 95% of the people
looking at it, they'll think it's a version.

> _Please_ don't put colons in keywords. Punctuation is bad, it makes for
> typos.

Reasonable, though I'm not sure how better to handle things- underscore?
no spaces at all? Remember, for maximum clarity, these have to convey
not just 'version' and 'milestone' but also must convey global-ness;
i.e., that this is in GNOME version 2.0, not just gRandomApp2.0.

> What do you think?

Let's try again, then- 

VERGNO1.4.x
VERGNO2.0.x
VERGNO2.1.x

TARGET2.0.3
TARGET2.2.0
TARGET2.2.1
etc.

I'm not sure how well these read; VERGNO seems pretty ugly to me.

[is target more clear than milestone? Just a random thought- milestone
is sort of a mozilla-ism as much as anything else.]

Luis