pfdubois at gmail.com
Mon Nov 27 05:48:09 CET 2006
(A) Martin said, which I think sets the list of versions (and also means it
is a single value, not a set):
> >>> SF has a field indicating a version number - we use that to record
> >>> in what version a bug was found, so it always talks about past
> >>> not future versions.
(B) and he said:
> >>> We currently use priorities to show
> >>> - that a submission should be integrated into the next release if
> >>> at all possible
> >>> - that a submission blocks a release, i.e. we can't release without
> >>> that issue being resolved
> >>> That distinction is mostly made just before a release; a single
> >>> "target version" field would not help as it would not distinguish
> >>> between blockers and non-blockers.
and suggestions were made about how to deal with blockers. So to sum up what
Martin and others have said, they do not use priorities except for this
Here is another idea for this then: don't have a priority but do have a
check box or yes/no (probably visible, or at least writeable, by Developers)
that says something like 'Needed for next release if at all possible'. Then
a simple search will find all such issues that are still open, etc.
C. Question: did someone say we should have this platform thing? Since a
platform-dependent bug is probably less frequent than one that is not, we at
least have to make platform-independent the default.
Since the text of the complaint should contain this information, it seems
redundant and messy to me, especially since we can't possibly deal with all
the new platforms that will arise. (Solaris on an X-Box 380).
> The rest of the plan is good with me. BTW I'm still having trouble posting
to the draft tracker.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tracker-discuss