I would think we need to address up to Major ( Blockers/Critical/Major ). Major list can be reviewed / Triaged and issues which doesn't need to be fixed can be deferred. As this is time based release, incoming and critical defect criteria that Chip mentioned should be fine.
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:j...@zonker.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:19 AM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [QA][DISCUSS] Should we document formal release criteria? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013, at 01:14 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:11:51AM -0800, Alex Huang wrote: > > So in this definition, MAJOR and above must be fixed before a release is > > cut? > > Personally, I've used the "no blockers and <5 critical with work > arounds" as the criteria, using the definitions I offered. How many "Major" bugs are acceptable? Currently we have 187. Even if they're not going to completely disrupt use of the platform, it seems to me that releasing with >100 major bugs is a bit much. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
