ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Xavier Hanin" <xavier.ha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is our objective for 2.0 too ambitious? (was Re: Ivy 2.0 planning)
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:48:08 GMT
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com> wrote:

> I think you have to accept that there will be bugs. After all, would you
> halt the whole release if a minor bug was found the day before it was due to
> be published?
>
> But there are different categories of bugs. Some are so serious that you
> don't want to roll a release with it no matter what. This category really
> should result in pulling a release the day before publishing. Then there is
> a descending scale after that.
>
> My suggestion would be to use the Priority field for this purpose. Here is
> how I use the Jira priorities:
>  - Anything labeled "Blocker" should be fixed ASAP. It might be impacting
> other developers working from the tip or perhaps breaking Gump.
>  - "Critical" is for anything that has to be fixed before a release can go
> out.
>  - "Major" issues should be targeted for fixing for a release and their
> number kept as low as possible, but if any ended up in a release you
> wouldn't lose sleep over it.
>  - "Minor" issues are the "nice-to-haves".
>  - "Trivial" issues are ones that someone has complained about but the
> developers don't see that fixing them would significantly improve the
> product.
>
> If you have some sort of standard like that to go by, I think you can
> fairly rapidly differentiate the bugs and then define a release as: No
> Blockers or Criticals, and as few Majors as is practical to accomplish
> within the time span available. The number of Minors and Trivials are
> ignored.


That sounds like a good practice. What do others think? How do we proceed to
classify the open bugs?

Xavier


>
>
> Xavier Hanin wrote:
>
> > More than one month ago we agreed to focus on bug fixing for 2.0 final
> > (see
> > my original mail below).
> > At that time we had about 80+ issues targeted at 2.0.
> > Since then it seems we have fixed 57 issues:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=12310580&fixfor=12313012
> >
> > But we still have 64 issues to fix, which shows that new issues comes up
> > (or
> > some where retargeted or created to detail issues being fixed).
> >
> > This leads me to one question: is our objective to fix all open bugs for
> > 2.0
> > too ambitious?
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message