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.
>
>
So
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.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Jeremy White 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
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
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
