the interesting thing is when you create a new vernacular within a team - the rest of the world thinks you're saying Schedule to fix soon. instead of Fix now or as soon as possible. and the rest of the world has no way to tell you Fix now or as soon as possible.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Daniel van Vugt < daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote: > 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
