On 03/14/2013 04:50 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> In the interests of sanity I propose we bulk assign all issues filed
> before some arbitrary point in time to the 'unscheduled' milestone. I
> suggest using the date 1.7.0 was tagged as that point, under the
> assumption that any issues filed prior were not considered 1.7.0
> blockers, so shouldn't be considered 1.8.0 blockers either. That
> would leave 24 "newer" issues which I'm happy to review and assign an
> initial milestone to.
I was thinking along similar lines yesterday (though with '1.8-consider'
stuff in mind, not '---'). So, yeah, +1.
As an aside, we as devs need to get into the habit of ensuring that we never
comment on any issue without also giving it a real milestone assignment.
It's really not that hard when you think about it, even if it means querying
on IRC for second opinions. '---' is our "needs triage indicator. As it
is, I see 17 issues that are targeted at '---' and on which I made a
comment, so I am clearly part of the problem here. Sorry about that, and
I'll try to be better citizen in the future.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2013-03-15 14:23:20 CET