Re: Talking about "Where We Are At"

[Alex Duggan <aldug astrolinux com>]

On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 09:50, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Well, I've been thinking about bugs in the post-2.2.0 timeframe, and I
> thought I'd raise some issues here now. Of course the most important
> thing to do now is the pre-2.2.0 things Luis raised in his e-mail, but
> nevertheless this needs discussing eventually.
> 
> * New keyword
> 
> We need GNOMEVER2.2, technically as soon as we release, preferably
> sooner :-)
> 
> * GNOMEVER accumulating
> 
> Some bugs are triaged GNOMEVER2.0,GNOMEVER2.1,GNOMEVER2.3. Which is
> ridiculous. I propose defining keywords as follows:
> 
> GNOMEVER2.0 appears by itself if the bug was reported against version
> 2.0.x and we don't know if it still occurs in version 2.2. Some bugs,
> like Sun multihead bugs, are like this because most people can't test
> them.
> 
> GNOMEVER2.1 appears by itself if the bug was reported against version
> 2.1.x and we don't know if it still occurs in version 2.2.
> 
> GNOMEVER2.2 appears by itself if the bug is in version 2.2.x and can be
> fixed in the 2.2 timeframe (no string/UI/feature freeze breakage).
> 
> GNOMEVER2.3 appears by itself for all freeze-breaking bugs that are in
> 2.2.x.
> 

I think the majority of the work lies in going through all of the bugs
that are marked GNOMEVER2.0 and GNOMEVER2.1 and seeing which ones can be
marked GNOMEVER2.2 and which ones should be GNOMEVER2.3.

Development for GNOME-2.0.x seems pretty dead and likely won't pick up. 
I'm not sure if it's a better idea to move some the old GNOMEVER2.0 bugs
that still exist in 2.1.x to a more updated keyword or to just leave
them alone.

Alex

-- 
Alex Duggan <aldug astrolinux com>