forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: planning the 0.8 release (Was: [RT] structurer location and resource types)
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:22:56 GMT
Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>David Crossley wrote:
> >>
> >>>The "roadmap" mixes in all of the plugins issues.
> >>>The so-called "Priority" is a reporter-based priority.
> >>
> >>Does it? I can't check it right now (I'm replying offline) but I'm 
> >>pretty sure I moved all of the plugin stuff out of the roadmap for 0.8. 
> >>The only references to plugins in there (that I intentionally left) is 
> >>to how core handles plugins.
> >
> >Ah, i did not realise that you were doing that.
> >
> >However, as we move more stuff into plugins,
> >what would happen when we have plugins issues
> >that need to be fixed?
> That's where you urgency field comes in (which wasn't available when I 
> did the 0.8 roadmap).

That sounds like it would work. So to assess the
state of the upcoming release, we look at the filters
to see Urgency=blocker and Urgency=urgent
(whether they are marked on the roadmap or not).
The remaining issues on the roadmap are "hope-to-fix".
Is that how you see it too?

> >>>We also need regularly look at the "unscheduled"
> >>>filter and add some to the roadmap. There have
> >>>been many new issues added since you did that
> >>>initial classification.
> >>
> >>I have been watching them carefully and adding those necessary to the 08 
> >>roadmap. I may have missed some, i don't claim that this is finished 
> >>since it has not been reviewed by the community. But the point is most 
> >>of what you say needs to be done has been done. It just needs review. I 
> >>have been progressing along this roadmap assuming lazy consensus was in 
> >>operation.

It is in operation.

There were many issues in the "unscheduled" before
you started. Speaking for myself, i don't look
often enough at that filter.

> >We agreed that we needed to have the additional
> >field called "Urgency" (see earlier in this thread).
> >You helped to craft the words to explain it and
> >to define the options. See:
> >
> Yes, and as new issues have been coming in I have tried to give them an 
> urgency rating, although I am sure some have slipped through my net.

We still need to attend to this "Urgency" rating.
There are not many issues listed so far.


View raw message