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

Subject: Re: [boost] Report # 29 (aka 1.45 blockers) is too narrow
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-25 23:39:07

On 10/25/2010 7:01 PM, Jim Bell wrote:
> 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.

You're right, it's probably the case that nobody has reviewed these.

> Further, this suggests that release managers deliberately left
> showstopping tickets open for previous revisions. Really?

Just 'cause someone says it's a showstopper doesn't mean it is.

> Demoting a ticket's severity from showstopper would constitute evidence
> that it's been reviewed, but the fact that all these exist suggests that
> they haven't.

No, the fact that the bugs haven't been "accepted" is evidence that they
haven't been reviewed. A query for "accepted showstoppers" turns up
exactly one that our filter missed:

https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3550

I'll reset its milestone so that our filter picks it up. (Right now I
can't because the Trac keeps telling me the database is locked. Why does
our Trac consistently perform so poorly? Anyone?)

> 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.

True. And several of those have not been accepted. Troubling. Not
everybody is playing by the same rules. :-(

>> The bugs that random boost users deem important is
>> less interesting.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> 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?) 

It's the job of a library maintainer to review bugs, *accept the ones
that are legit* and set the priority and milestone if necessary. Until
they're accepted we can only assume that they've never been looked at.

Review managers aren't in the best position to determine whether a bug
is really a showstopper. The best we can do is prod some library
maintainer and ask for clarification. We should probably be more
proactive about that.

And what if an accepted showstopper isn't getting fixed because the
maintainer is busy? At some point we have to say screw it and move ahead
with the release (with an appropriate BIG warning in the release notes).

> 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.

Agreed.

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com