Hi Andrew, > But Bernard has a very valid point also. ...
I didn't question this, but wrote >>I can't talk about the concrete issue here, but let me say a general >>word about those other 74 ... Honestly, I simple didn't follow the whole thread, only Bernard's last mail sprung to my attention because of this statement about resolved-lated issue. I absolutely believe that there are resolved-later issues which better go into some 2.0.x, but I didn't even attempt to judge this concrete case :) > If I might make a suggestion, when weighing the risk/benefit factors - > length of time that the issue has been open be taken into account. > In a situation like this if a fix is deemed to risky for release - at > least try and see if a reasonable target can be set. The ambiguity of > OOLater for an 18 month fix is a bit much. My personal opinion here (again without having judged the concrete case) is that if an issue is annoying people for that long time, and this is shown by votes, constant complaints, whatever, it should get some points on the pro-include-in-2.0.x side - it might be considered a "customer escalation" then :). > Final point, they are called maintanence releases because they > incorporate fixes to known defects. Well, but that definition is to broad ... The number of known defects (just query IZ) is much higher than we will fixed for even "OOo Much Later". Thanks & Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
