Re: Countdown to branch?

On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 11:24 +1100, msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
> 2. The fix is likely to be quite disruptive and could cause substantial
> regressions and or take a week to complete

I understand the regression part, but the "or" befuddles me. You
postponed bugs to 2.4 for the sole reason that they'd take a week to
fix?

>
> In addition I find I'm getting anxious to get hacking on fun new features
> for 2.4. (abimath, doubles, svg, grammar checking, more table features...)
>

Noone's stopping you, it just needs to stay out of mainline while
mainline is stable. We've had this discussion six or seven times in the
last couple months, I can't imagine there's any ground we've yet to
cover.

>
> So is there something like a list of bugs to count-down to 2.4, like we
> had for 2.2?

Yes. As discussed before, the base query is top priority bugs targetted
at 2.2.x. The actual "list" is not concrete because it is a branch
prereq situation and not a milestone. It's about whether or not we're
making substantial progress on those bugs, many of which were postponed
to 2.2.x for no other reason than that we had to. Basically, subtract a
handful from the current number (~42 - ~7 ~= ~35) and there's your
benchmark. We aren't going to hold up branching on the entire bunch
because that might take until february. Nevertheless, I would like to
see _some_ substantial progress on these high priority, high severity,
high exposure bugs, not to mention the regressions that've been and are
being introduced. But that's just little old me. (not really)

Regards
-MG
Received on Tue Dec 28 03:24:48 2004