It's less of an issue if we also remember to review release branches
before top approving them. In that case, hopefully code reviewers will
also check for open critical bugs and mention them.
But yeah I feel we're not utilizing the importance field if we're
allowing critical bugs to remain open without anyone even checking on
them during the release process.
BTW, I demoted the remaining ones to High yesterday so all criticals are
now resolved :)
On 17/02/16 21:48, Kevin Gunn wrote:
So are you both tied to the idea of using Critical/High for this?
as the lp definition/intimations for Critical/High don't really match
the "blocker" use, would you be ok with using a tag "blocker" instead?
can't see how a tag is any more costly and gets the job done all the same.
ultimately the call is Stephen's.
If you choose the Critical/High....just needs to be a) outlined
somewhere & b) added to the release instructions like duflu originally
asked.
br,kg
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Stephen M. Webb
<stephen.w...@canonical.com <mailto:stephen.w...@canonical.com>> wrote:
On 16-02-16 08:08 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> If a critical bug isn't blocking a release I guess it should be demoted
to High.
>
> We need some simple threshold that doesn't require the reader to understand
the details of each bug. Just that "if
> importance >= critical then don't release". And there's no other level we
can use for that other than critical (or
> 'high' later as the project matures).
I have to agree with this. If the bug is not critical enough to
block a release, it shouldn't be classed as critical.
--
Stephen M. Webb <stephen.w...@canonical.com
<mailto:stephen.w...@canonical.com>>
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
