From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@giblet.glug.org>
Cc: ghouston@arglist.com, mvo@zagadka.ping.de, guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Tool version in HACKING
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:42:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E16vN3L-0000AE-00@giblet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87n0wbwq0x.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:42 -0500)
From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:42 -0500
I'm not sure I follow. I can see why we might want to have
references to bugs from the TODO list; are you arguing for
more than that? (I don't think I adequately grokked your
suggestion).
yes, more than that. a reference to a bug is not as accurate
(wrt a todo list) as a reference to a bug *fix*, which is more
specific. the proposal would conventionalize this, so that we
can have some greater confidence that TODO list items (relating
to bugs) are actually specific things to do. the more specific
a TODO list, the easier it is to follow.
other concurrent processes are bugs prioritization and bugfix
execution, to name the two that are relevant. often it is one
person that takes care of notation, prioritization, and
execution, and probably the result is most coherent if this is
the case, but it's a good idea to recognize the separate
processes anyway, so that the thinking that goes behind these
processes can be exposed and refined, and the parallizable parts
exploited.
bottom line: if the release manager wants to have a say in bugs
prioritization, it is helpful to see what the impact of the bug
fix is in terms of the other tasks (IMHO). btw, what are your
thoughts on the duties of a release manager? this question is
related to the roles that people play, overall.
thi
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-10 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-09 17:12 Tool version in HACKING Marius Vollmer
2002-04-09 19:28 ` Gary Houston
2002-04-10 6:29 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2002-04-10 15:07 ` Rob Browning
2002-04-10 18:42 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen [this message]
2002-04-22 16:59 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
[not found] ` <200204091928.MAA18084@onyx.he.net>
2002-04-15 13:59 ` Marius Vollmer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E16vN3L-0000AE-00@giblet \
--to=ttn@giblet.glug.org \
--cc=ghouston@arglist.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=mvo@zagadka.ping.de \
--cc=ttn@glug.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).