Hi,
On Monday 23 July 2007 16:25, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Now I like to suggest the following "new" meaning to priorities:
>
> p1 = we need to fix this immediatly or within the next 5 days
> p2 = we will not release r1 without that fixed
> p3 = we want to fix that before we release r1, but maybe we
Hi,
On Tuesday 24 July 2007 14:39, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Holger Levsen]
> > IMO we should aim to^w^w release 3.0r1 in a month, even if only/mostly
> > with documentation fixes (though other fixes are fine too). Then r2
> > another month later. And then concentrate on lenny.
> I believe thi
[Holger Levsen]
> IMO we should aim to^w^w release 3.0r1 in a month, even if only/mostly with
> documentation fixes (though other fixes are fine too). Then r2 another month
> later. And then concentrate on lenny.
I believe this is too short time frame to manage much improvements,
especially sinc
Hi,
On Monday 23 July 2007 16:25, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Now I like to suggest the following "new" meaning to priorities:
>
> p1 = we need to fix this immediatly or within the next 5 days
> p2 = we will not release r1 without that fixed
> p3 = we want to fix that before we release r1, but maybe we
Hi,
on the 3rd of may I wrote a mail suggesting rules for defining priorities of
our bugs. Those suggestions became rules:
p1 = we cannot release without that fixed
p2 = we will not release without that fixed
p3 = we want to fix that before release, but maybe we will not manage
p4 = we will not
5 matches
Mail list logo
