What to do when un-nominating bugs for 1.2

[Dan Kegel]

In the gcc world, when a bug is targeted for release X
and doesn't make it in time, it is retargeted for release X+1.

So when 1.0 rolled around, I retargeted the leftover 1.0-targeted
bugs at 1.2.

Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4
if they're not going to be fixed for 1.2?

The only time one should simply remove the 1.2 target
is if we decide the bug really isn't even a candidate for 1.4
(or was nominated for 1.2 in error).

[Jeremy White]

Hey Dan,

Dan Kegel wrote:
> In the gcc world, when a bug is targeted for release X
> and doesn't make it in time, it is retargeted for release X+1.
>
> So when 1.0 rolled around, I retargeted the leftover 1.0-targeted
> bugs at 1.2.
>
> Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4
> if they're not going to be fixed for 1.2?

Alexandre expressed a preference that the bugs not be auto rolled to 1.4;
he'd rather we deliberately chose bugs to go into 1.4.   So when we  
un-nominated,
we were intentionally returning bugs to the larger pool.  If that proves 
to have
been a mistake (which it may yet), please blame me; I made Austin make 
each change.

We were trying an experiment - a bug council to review the bugs.  I'm 
not sure if
it was successful; the bugs have a great richness of information that is 
hard to
digest and then discuss thoughtfully in a relatively small (2 hours) 
period of time.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Dan Kegel]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> Alexandre expressed a preference that the bugs not be auto rolled to 1.4;
> he'd rather we deliberately chose bugs to go into 1.4.   So when we
>  un-nominated, we were intentionally returning bugs to the larger pool.

OK.
> We were trying an experiment - a bug council to review the bugs.  I'm not
> sure if it was successful; the bugs have a great richness of information
> that is hard to digest and then discuss thoughtfully in a relatively small
> (2 hours) period of time.

Judging from the bugzilla activity, it looked pretty successful.
- Dan

[Vitaliy Margolen]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4
> if they're not going to be fixed for 1.2?
> At least simple explanation for why bugs were un-nominated from 1.2 would
> have been great. Half of bugs had no explanation whatsoever.

Vitaliy.

[Scott Ritchie]

Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4
> > if they're not going to be fixed for 1.2?
> > At least simple explanation for why bugs were un-nominated from 1.2 would
> > have been great. Half of bugs had no explanation whatsoever.

Sorry, this would be my fault.  There were only one or two of us
actually updating bugzilla during the session and I was busy trying to
actually keep up with the decisions.  So a few I just unnominated
without comment because we were already talking about one 10 bugs down
the list.

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie