Re: Target Milestone of Future is harmful

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Thomas Schulz writes:
> I would like to suggest that having a Target Milestone of Future for a
> bug is harmful.  It was probably necessary when you were trying to get
> 3.0.0 out and you were not sure what the next verson number would be,
> but now it seems to be a way for a bug to fall into a black hole.  It
> seems that if a bug is not grabbed by someone within a few hours of
> being submitted, it is lost.

It's a manageability thing.  We don't have someone who can sit
there continually reprioritising bugs :(

I suggest that if you have bugs with TM set to Future, and you think
they're implementable sooner ;) -- feel free to post a comment and pipe
up. In particular, getting a patch that implements the feature is a *lot*
more likely to get a bug a solid milestone.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFB4sycMJF5cimLx9ARAkTQAJ9rgwfZb2/vfyt9fjkNc5McdUdRCwCgifvP
0o8X6l0A6wBmqck+mU2Hh/E=
=b1up
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Target Milestone of Future is harmful

[Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>]

Justin Mason said:
> It's a manageability thing.

Another way to look at is that the only person you can be certain has an
interest in a new bug report is the one who submitted it. If the target
milestone is still Future and you feel strongly about it, then it is up
to you to evangelize the bug report until a developer is convinced to
change the milestone. Submitting a patch is one of the most effective
ways to do that.

I think that a bug remaining with target Future is more symptom than
cause. It allows bug reports that appear not to be important to address
right now to not get lost while still being mostly ignored. Anyone who
cares about a specific bug report should speak up and make their case for
it.

 -- Sidney Markowitz
    http://www.sidney.com