Asa Dotzler wrote:
> I doubt that Netscape6 release had anything to do with the delay of a
> mozilla 1.0 doc. If you think a particular feature or level of
> support is important then you can help by finding the bugs in that
> feature or standard and nominating them for a fix in mozilla0.9 or
> mozilla1.0 Don't sit around waiting for someone to hand you a list of
> what Mozilla 1.0 should be, [...]
Brendan Eich wrote on Wed, 27 Sep 2000 in message
news://news.mozilla.org:119/39D262E5.12C167AE%40meer.net
in the thread "Another roadmap draft is out" on n.p.m.general:
> Look for a document defining Mozilla 1.0 soon
> from [EMAIL PROTECTED], typed up by me.
I've been looking for such a document for more than 2 and a half months now, but
I haven't seen one. I still think the need for such a document is obvious, but
I'll be happy to be proved wrong. If you can point me to a newsgroup message
where people agreed that such a plan is not needed, please do.
I agree that everyone should nominate bugs for moz0.8/0.9/1.0 even in absence of
such a document, but I don't think this is enough. Here's one example: I feel
that it is a fundamental part of open source software that the resulting software
is stable. It simply doesn't crash. Therefore I think it's necessary to follow a
"zero known crashers" strategy. This doesn't mean there will ever be a release
with zero crasher bugs. It only means that there will be a release (hopefully
mozilla 1.0) without any _known_ crashers. The question is how you define what a
known crasher is. I would define it as a crasher where the steps to reproduce are
known and reliable.
Currently, there are more than 400 open crasher bugs ("crash" keyword or "crash"
in summary) in the "Browser" product, and 70 MailNews crashers. Of course, not
all of them are "known crashers" according to the definition above. But before
these bugs can be triaged efficiently, the classification criteria have to be
decided upon, and there has to be a way to track progress. To me, it seem a bad
strategy to just add mozilla0.x keywords to all of these crasher bugs, and
randomly adding keywords to some of them doesn't seem right to me (it would be
some kind of "equal protection violation" if you understand what I mean.. ;)
I believe that the area of crashers is only one of many where well-defined
standards are needed.
Andreas
