Re: bugs -> release milestone policy

[Andrew Sobala <andrew sobala net>]

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 21:27, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 15:09, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > > > 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?
> 
> Well, you're talking about a keyword that has been used thousands of
> times, so I can understand why it would seem like a high cost. However, 
> literally 95% of the time they were used by me. :) So... the
> re-education cost is pretty low, especially given that it's very clear
> that even many active bug-hunters didn't understand them the first time
> around. I can do the changes directly in the database so no spam cost,
> either.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Let me suggest a third option. It is roughly what I did for 2.0;
> versions have been changed to protect the innocent.
> 
> *add GNOVER2.1 to all 2.1-specific bugs as appropriate, including
> prioritization. Difference from either scenario above: No TARGET keyword
> is assigned at this time, 'just' priority. In this sense, priority of
> high or greater is roughly like Andrew's TARGET2.2 keyword.
> 
> *when we get closer to release (probably early december), everything
> 'high' priority is reviewed and assigned TARGET2.2.0 or TARGET2.2.x;
> after 2.2.0 everything with 2.2.x as well as new bugs are reviewed and
> possibly moved to 2.2.1.
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the best way- it involves a lot of very
> time-intenstive review late in the process. What do you guys think? The
> mechanism I just described worked for me, but I'm not convinced it's the
> Best Way.

If we go for this way, it would be nice to have a TARGET2.2.0 and
TARGET2.2.x from the word go anyway, that QAs can use very cautiously
with large dollops of moderation just to speed up the late-triage
process. And these can be used slightly more as we approach december.

> Note that this discussion doesn't clarify how to handle the 2.0.x and
> 2.2 split- i.e., can we or should we have bugs that are both TARGET2.0.3
> and TARGET2.2.0? Or bugs that are both GNOVER2.0 and GNOVER2.1? I'm not
> sure what the best solution is for that, to be honest- I've got very
> little experience with it.

There's no reason why we can't have dual targets, but in practise most
people will end up treating 2.2 as more important.

-- 
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------