From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Tool version in HACKING Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:42:43 -0700 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87adscre31.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <200204091928.MAA18069@onyx.he.net> <87n0wbwq0x.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018464507 24139 127.0.0.1 (10 Apr 2002 18:48:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ghouston@arglist.com, mvo@zagadka.ping.de, guile-devel@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 16vN8t-0006HD-00 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:48:27 +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 16vN8X-0004eB-00; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:48:05 -0400 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16vN7U-0004dI-00 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:47:01 -0400 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16vN3L-0000AE-00; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:42:43 -0700 Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org In-Reply-To: <87n0wbwq0x.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:42 -0500) 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:351 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:351 From: Rob Browning 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