Hi!
I agree that setting an issue to RESOLVED/INVALID is just a stronger
statement that we don't understand the problem enough to consider it a
valid problem anymore. According to the process for issues, someone else
(the verifier) needs to agree (to verify it) and then the original
reporter needs to agree (to close it). This very long path for an issue
should take care of the risk of closing an issue that was in fact valid.
On the other hand, the long path for an issue is a problem for us
because we have a huge pile of issues waiting to be verified and closed.
I don't think this is a priority now however. Our first priority should
be the issues that are not addressed (NEW/STARTED/REOPENED) (*). Once we
have managed to reduce these to a manageable amount, we can start
discussing the resolved or verified issues and how to close them without
loosing quality.
(*) Tom has several times pointed out, and I agree, that newly created
issues not yet commented by any developer should be a priority among
these but that is when discussing it from an urgency-perspective more
than the where to spend our time-perspective.
/Linus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Tarling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: den 12 juli 2006 00:12
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [argouml-dev] Outstanding P2 issues
>
> I think I shall mark these invalid sooner rather than later.
>
> Words don't seem to be enough to get a response so I shall close as
> invalid with instructions that the user should reopen if the problem
> persists.
>
> There is the performance issue you're looking at Tom (4167) - I really
> hope some improvement may make the forthcoming release. Maybe we don't
> have users with larger models but we don't want to discourage them.
> Who knows how long it will be till 0.24 (or even 1.0!)
>
> Bob.
>
>
> On 7/11/06, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm reluctant to close issues too quickly when a user doesn't reply,
but
> our
> > release rules tend to force us in that direction. The problems
which
> are
> > still open sound similar to others that have been fixed and I rely
think
> we
> > want to get this release to a wider audience for testing, so I'd
support
> > either an exception to the release rules or disposing of the
outstanding
> > issues.
> >
> > Actually, I don't think issue 4031 should hold up the release
either.
> I'll
> > take another look at it to see how much work is left, but if it
can't be
> > finished up this week, I'd argue for releasing the beta anyway.
It's
> > arguably on the border between an enhancement and defect, so we
could
> simply
> > reclassifying it as an enhancement request.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bob Tarling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:48 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: [argouml-dev] Outstanding P2 issues
> > >
> > >
> > > Once issue 4031 is resolved and we have another release due I
> > > propose to close the other P2 issues as invalid and allow us
> > > to go to beta. If these users are not willing to describe the
> > > problems further then there is little I can do.
> > >
> > > Is this acceptable?
> > >
> > > Release 0.22 is clearly in sight.
> > >
> > > Bob.
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
