[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] Issue Tracker Cleanup

From: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:48:12 -0400

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Whenever we approach a release we always face the question: Which of
> our open issues are blockers for the upcoming release? Obviously as
> we approach 1.8, anything with a target milestone of 1.8.0 is
> (supposedly) a blocker. But what about all the issues with the '---'
> target milestone? Very old issues (e.g. something filed in say 2007)
> are almost certainly not blockers, whereas more recently filed issues
> may be.
>
> Unfortunately we currently have 131 issues with a target milestone of
> '---', though given the age of many of these I'm fairly confident they
> are *not* blockers for 1.8 as they have already seen one or more
> releases pass by.
>
> Recall how we claim to use the target milestone:
>
> [[[
> When an issue is first filed, it automatically goes in the "---"
> target milestone, which indicates that the issue has not yet been
> processed. A developer will examine it and maybe talk to other
> developers, then estimate the bug's severity, the effort required to
> fix it, and schedule it in a numbered milestone, for example 1.1. (Or
> they may put it the unscheduled or nonblocking milestone, if they
> consider it tolerable for all currently planned releases.)
>
> An issue filed in unscheduled might still get fixed soon, if some
> committer decides they want it done. Putting it in unscheduled merely
> means it hasn't been scheduled for any particular release yet. The
> nonblocking milestone, on the other hand, means that we do not
> anticipate ever scheduling the issue for a particular release. This
> also does not mean the issue will never be fixed; it merely means that
> we don't plan to block any release on it.
> ]]]
>
> 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.

Done.

-- 
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
Received on 2013-03-15 22:48:45 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.