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?
>

Well in a sense yes. One whole week of my time when I could have fixed 15
or 20 other bugs. At the end of the week I might have got the document in
bug 7815 to import but I wouldn't be sure that some other doc would not
cause the same symptoms.

>>
>> 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.
>

This is a pain. For ABIMATH my plan is to move the code for math into HEAD
so that it can compile and basially be benign if gtkmathview is not
present and to move the rest to a plugin.

I only want to do this once.

I'm not sure what Tomas is doing with the pango-graphics class but I can
see it might clash with uwog's double patch which I believe requires a
reworking of the graphics class. We won't be able to evaluate it fully
until we can be sure it actually works.

>>
>> 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)
>

OK I'll work out a bugzilla query and bookmark it. We have to focus on
this list and think about moving bugs from 2.2.x to 2.4 like I've done.

Martin

> Regards
> -MG
>
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 28 13:44:52 2004