Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:36:22 GMT From: ybmFlMmKgrT <d-d-meess@msn.com> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: misc/174577: PLLmZadCCHX Message-ID: <201212191736.qBJHaMNA044855@red.freebsd.org> Resent-Message-ID: <201212191740.qBJHe0aj098823@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 174577 >Category: misc >Synopsis: PLLmZadCCHX >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: change-request >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Wed Dec 19 17:40:00 UTC 2012 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: ybmFlMmKgrT >Release: PDRwgNNKzRas >Organization: PpiHtVXdUVQAXowL >Environment: Well, it's healthy critssiim so nothing wrong about that. But I also take the assessement part I think the idea is good in principle, if you have a managing party that actually have something to push (paid employee's can be kicked to work, volunteers can only be asked). I think the main problem with this is that even if we take the delays into account, the release will still shift around because things are found at the latest moment etc (as had happened since the -BETA cycle for 7.1).So lets say we shift the release date for 8.0 to 1/1/2010. Then (if nothing changes and we continue the way we did) we will release 1/2 or 1/3 in worst case.What will be happening is that the release engineers will have a revisit of the current procedures, and they will try to change the way the releases work a bit so that a "may 2009" date is a "may 2009' date. That means that revisiting the criticallity of bugs is one of the items, and that people might need to get poked periodically to keep remembering the delivery date. If the work is not done yet, too bad, it will be in the next release. That might be a more agressive way to handle such a release procedure, but it might workout better then accounting the delays and "accepting" them as granted I still have strong and good faith that 8.0 will be around it's proposed time (it might shift a bit, but the date that will be given will be fairly met).Suggestions remain welcome!! >Description: Well, it's healthy critssiim so nothing wrong about that. But I also take the assessement part I think the idea is good in principle, if you have a managing party that actually have something to push (paid employee's can be kicked to work, volunteers can only be asked). I think the main problem with this is that even if we take the delays into account, the release will still shift around because things are found at the latest moment etc (as had happened since the -BETA cycle for 7.1).So lets say we shift the release date for 8.0 to 1/1/2010. Then (if nothing changes and we continue the way we did) we will release 1/2 or 1/3 in worst case.What will be happening is that the release engineers will have a revisit of the current procedures, and they will try to change the way the releases work a bit so that a "may 2009" date is a "may 2009' date. That means that revisiting the criticallity of bugs is one of the items, and that people might need to get poked periodically to keep rememberi ng the delivery date. If the work is not done yet, too bad, it will be in the next release. That might be a more agressive way to handle such a release procedure, but it might workout better then accounting the delays and "accepting" them as granted I still have strong and good faith that 8.0 will be around it's proposed time (it might shift a bit, but the date that will be given will be fairly met).Suggestions remain welcome!! >How-To-Repeat: Well, it's healthy critssiim so nothing wrong about that. But I also take the assessement part I think the idea is good in principle, if you have a managing party that actually have something to push (paid employee's can be kicked to work, volunteers can only be asked). I think the main problem with this is that even if we take the delays into account, the release will still shift around because things are found at the latest moment etc (as had happened since the -BETA cycle for 7.1).So lets say we shift the release date for 8.0 to 1/1/2010. Then (if nothing changes and we continue the way we did) we will release 1/2 or 1/3 in worst case.What will be happening is that the release engineers will have a revisit of the current procedures, and they will try to change the way the releases work a bit so that a "may 2009" date is a "may 2009' date. That means that revisiting the criticallity of bugs is one of the items, and that people might need to get poked periodically to keep rememberi ng the delivery date. If the work is not done yet, too bad, it will be in the next release. That might be a more agressive way to handle such a release procedure, but it might workout better then accounting the delays and "accepting" them as granted I still have strong and good faith that 8.0 will be around it's proposed time (it might shift a bit, but the date that will be given will be fairly met).Suggestions remain welcome!! >Fix: Well, it's healthy critssiim so nothing wrong about that. But I also take the assessement part I think the idea is good in principle, if you have a managing party that actually have something to push (paid employee's can be kicked to work, volunteers can only be asked). I think the main problem with this is that even if we take the delays into account, the release will still shift around because things are found at the latest moment etc (as had happened since the -BETA cycle for 7.1).So lets say we shift the release date for 8.0 to 1/1/2010. Then (if nothing changes and we continue the way we did) we will release 1/2 or 1/3 in worst case.What will be happening is that the release engineers will have a revisit of the current procedures, and they will try to change the way the releases work a bit so that a "may 2009" date is a "may 2009' date. That means that revisiting the criticallity of bugs is one of the items, and that people might need to get poked periodically to keep rememberi ng the delivery date. If the work is not done yet, too bad, it will be in the next release. That might be a more agressive way to handle such a release procedure, but it might workout better then accounting the delays and "accepting" them as granted I still have strong and good faith that 8.0 will be around it's proposed time (it might shift a bit, but the date that will be given will be fairly met).Suggestions remain welcome!! >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201212191736.qBJHaMNA044855>