Subject: Re: [boost] Report # 29 (aka 1.45 blockers) is too narrow
From: Jim Bell (Jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-25 22:01:45
On 1:59 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/25/2010 6:41 AM, Jim Bell wrote:
>> So all agree that the 1.45 blockers report needs to be changed, at least
>> to remove the milesone.
> No, I object. That list represents bugs that the release managers have
> deemed important.
I'm not convinced of that, particularly in light of the milestone filter
being as narrow as it is.
I don't see evidence that anyone has reviewed most of the showstoppers,
particularly those missed by the current filter.
Further, this suggests that release managers deliberately left
showstopping tickets open for previous revisions. Really?
Demoting a ticket's severity from showstopper would constitute evidence
that it's been reviewed, but the fact that all these exist suggests that
Of the five tickets marked showstopper for 1.43 (3892, 3967, 4065, 4097,
4266), none show any change to their severity, so they were set by their
originator (a "random boost user"), neither closed nor modified by a
release manager, and 1.43 was released. Any objective observer would
conclude that they simply got missed.
> The bugs that random boost users deem important is
> less interesting.
> Would it be nice to go through all the bugs and make sure they're
> categorized correctly? You bet. Would I hold up 1.45 for it? Nope.
We seem to agree that a release manager (or a library's author?) should
go through at least the showstoppers and demote their severity. (Yes?)
But that still lets random boost users deem the importance of the
non-showstoppers, which doesn't seem right either. Unless they get reviewed.
1.44 has problems, and I'm convinced that the quality of 1.45 is more
important than it's timely release.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk