Re: bugs -> release milestone policy

[Andrew Sobala <andrew sobala net>]

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 20:12, Luis Villa wrote:
> 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.]

OK, I posted all that because I didn't know what the difference between
the VER and MILE was. I get it now and we're actually just talking about
the same thing, just the naming.

I like TARGET. I agree VERGNO is ugly. Assuming the relevant people know
about this change, I wouldn't be against calling it GNOME:

GNOME2.0->GNOME2.0
GNOME2.1.x->GNOME2.1
GNOME2.0.[1|2|3]->TARGET2.0.[1|2|3]
GNOME2.2.0->TARGET2.2.0

But are the costs of making sure that this new usage of an old keyword
isn't misunderstood too high to be practical?

A second point: At this point in time, should 2.2 bugs be targeted
TARGET2.2.0 or should we have a TARGET2.2 keyword as well? The
difference would be:

Scenario 1
----------

2.2 bugs get keyworded TARGET2.2.0
As we get closer to the release, some get punted and immediately get
rekeyworded TARGET2.2.[somenumber]

Scenario 2
----------

2.2 bugs get keyworded TARGET2.2 (really serious ones TARGET2.2.0)
As we get closer to the release, some 2.2s are obviously "must fix" and
get keyworded TARGET2.2.0. Others get keyworded TARGET2.2.[somenumber]
ie. punted.

Basically, in scenario 1 we use a TARGET2.2.0 keyword now and assume all
bugs will be fixed by 2.2.0 unless they get punted. In scenario 2, we
use a TARGET2.2 keyword now and assume it's too early to assign
third-dot targets.

I vote for 2 because I think that keywording 2.2.0 now would result in a
uselessly large number of 2.2.0 bugs that would spam a developer's query
for them.

-- 
Andrew

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GS/M d--(-) s: a17 C++(+++) UL+ P++ L+++ E--- W+>++ N(-) o? K? w--(---)
!O M V-
PS+ PE Y+ PGP+>++++ t@ 5-- X- R tv-@ b++++ DI+++ D>---- G- e- h! r--- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------