Re: TARGET2.2.x?

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 06:24, Aschwin van der Woude wrote:
> I agree with your assessment on this bug, but I personally find it hard
> to judge sometimes whether a bug deserves the 'TARGET2.2.x' keyword.
> 
> Perhaps we could come up with some rough guideline/rule of thumb how to
> judge if a bug deserves it.

Yeah, I need to spend the next couple days plowing through the various
high priority bugs and spewing examples. I've been trying to get to it
today, and might start after dinner, but lots of personal and work stuff
have piled up from my time off.

FWIW, this particular bug... hrm, it's borderline. I'd suggest that it
is probably even TARGET2.2.0- if we don't have a usable theme manager,
we've got a lot of problems, given the new theming mechanisms and a11y's
dependence on them.

Luis

> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 16:28, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > Urm... <ping>!
> > 
> > Does anyone have any opinions on this?
> > 
> > On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 16:38, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > > Hey dudes,
> > > 
> > > Should we have a TARGET2.2.x keyword for bugs that should be fixed in
> > > the 2.2.x series - and by 2.2.0 if possible but they are not so
> > > important as bugs with the TARGET2.2.0 keyword.
> > > 
> > > I thought of this when bug 102149 dropped into my inbox.
> > > 
> > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102149
> > > 
> > > It's not a 2.2.0 blocker, but it's broken in a usability sense.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?