Bugs priorities

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Fri Sep 19 08:51:23 PDT 2003


On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:30:10AM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Neven Has wrote:
> >I have changed just a few ones.  To P1 the ones that I think should go
> >into next release (1.1.8, ASAP) and to P2 the ones that have been
> >mentioned a lot on mailing lists as needed, so preferably the ones
> >that will be solved for the release after the next one.
> 
> OK, will take a look tomorrow at what can be done about them.

BTW, I have set the priority of the bugs assign to you to P3 (after a
few mis-clicks ;).

After we release 1.1.8, you can move some of them to P1, if you think
they are ready for the release after 1.1.8.  Same with those that are
P2 now, if we get to fixing them.

> I think you should leave the "Version" field set to the version the 
> bug was reported against, as opposed to changing it to CVS. The 
> Version field should only be set to CVS when the reporter of the bug 
> has duplicated the bug using the (then current) CVS HEAD code.

Then they should all be set to CVS. :)  These are all "initial" bugs
from my todo lists and all apply to the latest version, now in CVS.  I
just don't want to change the version of each one alone, and spam the
list again just for that, so I'm simply changing it when I do
something else with a bug.

> Who will be responsible for moving bugs from FIXED to VERIFIED and/or 
> CLOSED? Do we need someone to actually download/compile/test the CVS 
> code before doing that, or can we just do it when the code is 
> committed to CVS?

Well, instead of what I did for bug 619, maybe I should have just
marked the bug as VERIFIED, after checking your patch.  Then you, or
somebody else would commit it to CVS and at that point CLOSE it?

And if you can, you can close that bug now. :)


Neven




More information about the alfs-log mailing list