Case and point:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-37095, which I mentioned recently, 17 votes, multiple platforms... a mere 14 line fix, had been open for 2.5 years.
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 at 8:59 PM
From: "Rob Allan" <rob_al...@trimble.com>
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt?
From: "Rob Allan" <rob_al...@trimble.com>
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt?
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest>> There isn't, because developer selects the bugs they're going to fix.
>> There's common procedure.
> Oops, this came out wrong after reediting. I meant that there is no common
> procedure, each developer chooses the bugs however they wish.
>> There's common procedure.
> Oops, this came out wrong after reediting. I meant that there is no common
> procedure, each developer chooses the bugs however they wish.
Doesn't this really cut to the heart of what John is complaining about - Agile or non-Agile aside? The issue seems to be that there is no well-defined or over-arching policy or procedure for choosing what bugs to fix - the developers just pull bugs off the heap that seem doable. That's a natural approach in some ways, and devs often have good instincts for which bugs matter and can be most readily fixed. But maybe there is a need for some sort of regular high-level review of bugs to identify those that are having the worst customer impact and need to be looked at by the devs.
Rob
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
