Re: [cdt-dev] Reaching 2.1 Closure - Call for Vote

[Sean Evoy <sevoy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug,
I think zero bugs is a reasonable criteria
for a release. In the case of the MBS, some bugs are no longer relevant
in the 2.1 branch thanks to Leo's patch, but are important to track for
2.0.X. I guess we just have to make sure not to count 2.0.3 bugs in the
list of gating issues.

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

11/01/2004 10:13 AM

Please respond to
cdt-dev

To	cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[cdt-dev] Reaching 2.1 Closure - Call for Vote

Hey gang,

With the growing participation on the CDT, I think we need to be clear
as 
to what needs to be done to reach closure for a release. That way we can
all get a sense of how close we are and what are the remaining issues as
we get closer to release date.

I propose that we use the number of bugs which have as a Target Milestone
the release we are trying to achieve as the criteria. I also propose that
we don't release until that number reaches zero. That way, for each bug,
we make a clear decision on whether we fix in it this release or push it
to the next or future releases. It also helps communicate the status of
the bugs so that if someone objects to bugs being pushed, they know about
it and get a chance to voice their opinion.

The big problem right now, though, is that we've been blindly setting the
Target Milestones to the current release and then reassigning them in bulk
to the next release. My count shows 454 bugs that Target 2.1. I'm pretty
sure we will not be able to fix them all in 2.1 and a lot of them should
probably be marked future if we don't think we'll fix them in 3.0 either.
However, it will be a huge pain to go through them one by one so we may
want a bulk move one last time, although this time to future.

So I'd like to call a vote for this closure criteria (i.e. zero bugs 
targeting the release). Feedback is appreciated even if you aren't a 
committer.

If the vote is yes, I'd like some feedback on what to do with the existing
2.1 bugs.

Thanks,
Doug Schaefer, IBM's Technical Lead, Eclipse CDT
Ottawa Lab, IBM Canada, Rational Software Division
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev