Re: Helping get 2.2 out the door

Mark Gilbert wrote:

>ABI-2-0-0-STABLE continues to be further and further diverged, as
>expected, from HEAD. This is simply because HEAD is getting more
>advanced, the code has changed drastically, etc. This is not a bad
>thing, and it can be viewed as a tribute to the fact that HEAD is making
>significant progress. However, again as happens with any branch, this
>also means that fewer and fewer fixes can be readily backported from
>HEAD to STABLE.
>Therefore, it's time for us qa folk to start shifting our focus to
>getting 2.2 out the door, and starting all over again (-:
>
>Amongst other things, we could use some milestone triage. This won't
>help get any more bugs fixed in any given period of time but it will
>help get releases out the door, with the developers focused on getting
>the _right_ bugs fixed in time.
>
>
>
Minor plug here: If anybody has a Windows machine and a printer, please
help out. We've got a beyond-critical couple o' bugs wrt that, and they
collectively (IMHO) would block 2.2 on windows.

>If you aren't sure about a certain bug or don't want to mess with it,
>you can of course skip it. If you are troubled by a bug, or those
>involved with it raise questions (ie, you mark something for 2.2.x and
>someone says it might require a lot of refactoring, so it needs to be
>reevaluated), feel free to contact the list. That's what it's here for.
>
>Don't forget that while correlative patterns will naturally emerge
>between targets and severities and priorities, these are in fact
>independent dimensions. So, for example, a bug of critical severity may
>still get bumped back to 2.4 if it requires a lot of time and resources
>we don't have. Meanwhile a bug of normal severity might be tacked on to
>2.2.x if it would be a relatively self-contained change and not
>complicated to implement.
>
>
Are we using Priorities, now, too (p1-5) in addition to severities?
They sort of boggle my mind.

>If this still seems incongruous to you, look at it this way. A wise man
>(one of the voices in my head) once told me to think of bugzilla as an
>n-dimensional lattice, with subspacial resonances defining the spectrums
>of individual dimensions.
>
>
MG, my friend, you've been talking with the physicist too much. :)

>If anything confuses you (besides my imaginative anecdotes), feel free
>to contact the list or me personally (don't shy from irc).
>
>2.2 is gonna be one helluva release, so let's get this cake baked!
>
>
YEAH BABY!

>Best regards
>-MG
>
>
>
>
Ryan

(This message brought to you by Ryan's urge to avoid less interesting work.)
Received on Thu Jun 10 03:52:48 2004