On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 11:57:22PM -0700, Dan Quinlan wrote: > criteria was pretty reasonable. I don't quite follow why this is an > issue for you. We should have no problem moving the remaining > non-critical bugs to a later milestone after the fact.
... and I don't quite follow why no one else is having the same issue.
If there's a bug, and it's reproducable, then it should be fixed. I don't
care if it's trivial (ie: a print statement is wrong) or critical (ie:
it eats your children), it should be in a ticket, in the 3.0.0 queue,
and it should be fixed. My reading of your message was "any bug that's
not critical gets put on hold for 3.0.1", which is unacceptable to me.
If I misread, let me know.
This does not preclude us from doing a pre-release, and mass-checks,
etc, but I don't want to not fix a bug for sake of getting the final
release out.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Obviously I was either onto something, or on something.
-- Larry Wall on the creation of Perl
pgpNggUcjWpeI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
