On 03/14/2013 04:50 PM, Paul Burba wrote: > In the interests of sanity I propose we bulk assign all issues filed > before some arbitrary point in time to the 'unscheduled' milestone. I > suggest using the date 1.7.0 was tagged as that point, under the > assumption that any issues filed prior were not considered 1.7.0 > blockers, so shouldn't be considered 1.8.0 blockers either. That > would leave 24 "newer" issues which I'm happy to review and assign an > initial milestone to. > > Thoughts?
I was thinking along similar lines yesterday (though with '1.8-consider' stuff in mind, not '---'). So, yeah, +1. As an aside, we as devs need to get into the habit of ensuring that we never comment on any issue without also giving it a real milestone assignment. It's really not that hard when you think about it, even if it means querying on IRC for second opinions. '---' is our "needs triage indicator. As it is, I see 17 issues that are targeted at '---' and on which I made a comment, so I am clearly part of the problem here. Sorry about that, and I'll try to be better citizen in the future. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
