Re: [boost] Report # 29 (aka 1.45 blockers) is too narrow

Subject: Re: [boost] Report # 29 (aka 1.45 blockers) is too narrow
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-25 12:53:33

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Report # 29 (aka 1.45 blockers) is too narrow

> 
> vicente.botet wrote:
> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vladimir Prus" <vladimir_at_[hidden]>
>> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 7:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Report # 29 (aka 1.45 blockers) is too narrow
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim Bell wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think that boost report # 29
>>>> (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report/29) is too narrow a query. If
>>>> you remove the "Milestone" filter you get nearly fifty tickets marked
>>>> Showstopper, going back 22 months.
>>>> 
>>>> A ticket's originator may not know what milestone to fill in, and
>>>> his/her ticket shouldn't be lost because of that.
>>> 
>>> Or the ticket's originator may have used "showstopper" just because
>>> he overestimated the importance of the bug. Therefore, "showstopper"
>>> severity does not necessary mean anything.
>> 
>> It is up to the maintainer or someone else to change the severity if not correct.
>> 
>>>> I think they all need review.
>>> 
>>> And -- who exactly do you suggest review them -- given that per above,
>>> you actually have to review every single open bug, not just bugs with
>>> specific severity.
>> 
>> We need to review all of them of course  and by respect to the reporter, we should start by more
>> critical. For the more critical we can start by the newests.
> 
> Ok, would you please review them, in the suggested order?

I'd try it.
 
> I'm merely pointing out that Stowstopper+1.45 is a list of issues that were explicitly
> designated as potential showstoppers for 1.45, and is meant to make it less likely
> to have 1.45 released with such showstoppers unresolved.

I agree and I will add that the Stowstopper+1.45 should be limited to errors found on the release branch.
 
> While it's good to review other issues from time to time, that goal is entirely separate
> from the goal of not forgetting to resolve the issues that we think should be really
> resolved for 1.45.

I also agree :)

Best,
Vicente