While Nick and Dicebot have covered some of this already, there's a whole lot of problematic
statements here that need to be addressed.
On 7/12/14, 5:35 PM, Andrew Edwards via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Moved from D.announce for further discussion by request:
On Saturday, 12 July 2014 at 00:13:47 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
For convenience, the list of unresolved issues marked as regressions:
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=regression&resolution=---
Seems like there is still quite a way to go until we can release RC1.
David
David, I'm sure you are aware that list will never be empty.
Never? Awfully defeatist. There was a point where it was down to just the one from 2011. And
we've had releases where the no new known regressions policy has been true. That rule should remain
in effect.
The
last release lasted from mid November to 24 February and that
list was never empty once during that entire time. The only way
we will empty that list is to prevent people from submitting new
regressions during a review.
When I checked the list yesterday the count was at 9: right now
it is at 12. And at least one of those items on the list has been
there since 2011.
Prevent people from filing bugs? Not on my watch. Also, entirely false. The way to get that list
to zero is to actually fix bugs, which is happening, quite nicely. In the last week, 19 regressions
have been filed, 12 of which are already fixed and several others have pulls open awaiting review
and merge. This is entirely expected for the beginning of a beta period. I'd be surprised if there
_weren't_ a bunch of regressions filed.
The reality is that zero emphasis is place on regressions unless
it's time for a release, and even then, only a few people pay
attention to them. Everyone else just continue on in their happy
world doing "what's important to them". You you cannot ask that
anyone work on anything because if it's not important in their
minds, they will not do it. They'd much rather sit around and
biker about how you did it incorrectly. Which, in my opinion, is
a huge wast of time and resource.
Zero is full of hyperbole. There's several people that do a very good job of fixing regressions as
they occur and are reported. Could there be more emphasis from more people? Certainly.
You can't ask? Bzzzt. You can and most certainly should ask. Change of emphasis during a release
process is appropriate and a little reminder can help quite a bit. Are there kibitzers that play
arm chair quarterback? Of course, but that shouldn't stop us from doing what we believe to be the
right thing. The woe is me attitude is ridiculous and certainly not helpful.
So I have some questions: What is the magic number that will
trigger the release? What happens if we never reach that number?
Do we just continue waiting for it or do we make a decision at
some point that it's time? If so, how long do we wait? Is there
one person who makes the decision, or is it decision automatic?
If there is a person, who is it?
As Nick and Dicebot have said already, but worth repeating, I agree that the policy is no known
regressions since the last release. Time is by far a secondary factor. What happens as time passes
is that frustration rises and the people that care about getting the release out refine their focus
on getting those bugs fixed. To date, that's definitely fallen on a tiny number of people, which is
unfortunate, but it _does_ happen.
That said, no known regressions by itself is also not the only criteria. Should we happen to wind
up with no known regressions today, we still shouldn't be releasing 2.066 as not enough time has
passed for enough people to download and test to get any new bugs filed.
My 2 cents,
Brad
