From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: 1.6 release -- where I'd like us to go from here. Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:04:18 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87d6wpkxb1.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87g01xinhn.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019657203 19709 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 14:06:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:06:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170NPu-00057m-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:06:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170NPT-0001My-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:06:15 -0400 Original-Received: from dsl-209-87-109-2.constant.com ([209.87.109.2] helo=defaultvalue.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170NNb-0001HX-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:04:19 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9378A125; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:04:18 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9D0011CE; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:04:18 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:21:15 -0700") Original-Lines: 59 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:490 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:490 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > current state "fixed: Marius Vollmer , 2002-02-22" > does not address the problems of the bug reporter, whose > responsibilities in the process include closing it. that hasn't > happened yet. > > calling this bug (fixed or not) not release-critical means a release > is valued for its event and not its consequence. in this case > consequence is that people for whom (ice-9 optargs) worked before > w/o problems now have problems if they use this release. probably > release-critical tags should not be used to gate a release, but > should only be applied once given some criteria. I'm not sure I follow the the last sentence, but IMO I don't see a problem with having marked this bug release critical when it looked like it could actually be fixed (and should be if it could be). Now that it doesn't look like it should be fixed, it's no longer a bug. Perhaps "fixed" is the wrong term. Would "closed" or "resolved" be better? How would Steve Tell close the bug, and why would he be responsible for that? He reported a problem and the guile developers examined the issue and determined its resolution. Once that's done, the bug is resolved, closed, whatever. In the case of bound?, it was not quite right, was documented in NEWS as something you shouldn't expect to stick around, and now it's going away. IMO, after we make sure we have an appropriate NEWS eulogy, we can forget about it. > just done: > - moved the mailing list scanning subtree to Eventually > - moved "write render-bugs, add to mscripts or guile-tools" to > Eventually (will documented "1mo timeout guideline" shortly) > - replaced it w/ "write stub render-bugs" and did it. What's the "1mo timeout guideline"? > so now the only two items are to run render bugs at the right time in > the release process (why don't you claim these?). OK, will do. > the gist of these efforts is really just to capture some of the writings > that you've recently done (and are now doing) wrt release process "in > general". if you think the writings that you have or are imminently > about to checkin cover the relationships between release and bugs, and > release and stability (authoritatively), why not claim these tasks and > either use excerpts from the writings to organize those thoughts, or > reshape the tasks so that your writings fulfill their spirit. OK, as I mentioned in the prev msg, I'll see if I can get this done. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel