[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Nag Note for Project Status Bugzillas
|
I wanted to clarify, if it wasn't clear. If there's anything that's "not
done" for a technical reason (e.g. architectural requirements, or to avoid
performance impacts) it is ok to mark those as "fixed" and just explain
the technical reasons in the bugzilla.
And, yes, next year we will use another mechanism that can reflect some
degree of compliance for many items ... well, as long as someone
volunteers to make that web app (hint hint).
Plus, maybe I'm the only one, but I like the idea of marking "won't fix"
because that's an indication to me there's something interesting there to
read ... that is, it's just a category and color, not all that negative
(at least, not necessarily).
Oisin was right, months ago ... there's something about that red color :)
From:
Dave Steinberg <davidms@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
05/06/2009 10:52 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Nag Note for Project Status Bugzillas
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David,
Okay, will do. I'm not thrilled about the fact that we'll have a bunch of
won't fixes after so much work has been done, but such is life. By the
same token, will we end up using "won't fix" for all the corresponding
Galileo bugs where even a single project fails to comply? It just seems so
negative.
Next time can we consider using some other mechanism to track these?
Thanks again,
Dave
--
Dave Steinberg
Rational Software - IBM Toronto Lab
mailto:davidms@xxxxxxxxxx
David M Williams ---05/06/2009 10:37:32 AM---I'd suggest "won't fix" and
then explain the detail in bug's comments.
From:
David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
05/06/2009 10:37 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Nag Note for Project Status Bugzillas
I'd suggest "won't fix" and then explain the detail in bug's comments.
From:
Dave Steinberg <davidms@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
05/06/2009 10:20 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Nag Note for Project Status Bugzillas
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David,
Apologies for being a bit behind the ball on this, but I'm taking another
pass through EMF's Galileo bugs right now. For highly decentralized
projects like ours, with individual components contributing directly to
Galileo, it feels a bit like a cat herding exercise (not unlike the
overall experience you're enjoying, no doubt).
Anyhow, my question: there are numerous cases where some components are
meeting the requirement and other aren't. How should I resolve the bug in
those cases: fixed or won't fix?
Cheers,
Dave
--
Dave Steinberg
Rational Software - IBM Toronto Lab
mailto:davidms@xxxxxxxxxx
David M Williams ---05/01/2009 10:56:33 AM---As we come up to the end of
M7, our Galileo readiness chart, at
From:
David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
05/01/2009 10:56 AM
Subject:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Nag Note for Project Status Bugzillas
As we come up to the end of M7, our Galileo readiness chart, at
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/galileo_status.php
needs much attention.
If we went on the state of the table right now to decide who was "in"
Galileo, based on "must do" items for this point in cycle, there would
only be 10 of the 35 projects.
ACTF Visualization
BIRT
Data Tools
Equinox
GMF
M2T
Platform
Subversive
TPTP
TmL
Congratulations to them ... but even then, those 10 still need to do some
work for "RC1" items.
I'm fairly sure some of these just need book-keeping ... for example,
according to the chart, CDT has not yet declared their intent to be in
Galileo!
For other, non-book-keeping items, if you have not done it by M7 (and it
was due by M7) you should mark as "won't fix" and explain why. Otherwise,
when the Planning Council is reviewing them next week, we'll have to
assume you not only did not do the item, but you are also not
communicating in a cross-project, good-Eclipse-citizen fashion ... which
is of course the fundamental "must-do" requirement of our simultaneous
release!
Please update the bugzillas by end-of-day Tuesday, so the Planning Council
will have accurate data to discuss when we meet on Wednesday.
Thank you,
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
