Re: [cdt-dev] Changed the target milestone for unresolved defects from "

[Kleanthis Hapitas <khapitas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We should be using "priority"
to determine which defects will get addressed when. One standard &
simple way to manage defects is to have them all targeted to the upcoming
release, and those that don't get addressed (lower priority) get moved
to the next release when its opened up.  Its very useful to be able
to look at the pile of defects still unresolved as we contemplate wrapping
up a release. Also, its safer, and makes querying and reporting on defects
simpler. If there are defects that we know without a doubt will NOT be
fixed in the 2.0 stream, the other choices are to:

   a) leave the target as
"---" : that's sloppy, no differentiation from defects that have
simply not been triaged

   b) set target to "Future":
that can lead to confusion because "future" is relative to the
moment its set.  When you move on to 3.0, does a defect marked "future"
mean its should be left to 4.0?

  c) mark defect as Resolved with
resolution = LATER. Just as dangerous as setting the target milestone to
future, plus now we have to filter these out from resolved defects that
have actually been fixed on queries and reports.

So when a new defect comes in, set the
target to the upcoming release, and lower the priority if its not critical
to fix. If its a serious defect that we are deferring, the severity will
reflect that and grab attention as we close the release. As part of the
ongoing work I'm doing to organize the defects, I am planning to set the
priority of all unresolved defects to reflect their severity, and if there
are some we intentionally plan to defer, we can lower them (its a good
thing to go out of our way to do that and call attention to these!)

Kleo

John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/30/2003 10:01 AM

Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	Re: [cdt-dev] Changed the target milestone for unresolved defects from "--" to 2.0

> I'm assuming some of the recent defects opened
are targeted for the 
> 1.2 stream, even though the target milestone field was left blank
as
> by default. Rather them leave them as blank, I've moved them to 2.0
> with the rest of the open defects. 

What do we do with enhancements/features that we do not plan to fix in
2.0 then?  I think its misleading to put them in 2.0 in those cases
... 

JohnC
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev