Re: [VOTE] Squid-3.0.PRE4 release criteria

On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 12:08 +1200, Doug Dixon wrote:
> All
>
> I aim to get Squid-3.0.PRE4 released in four to six weeks' time.
>
> The list of bugs to be fixed in 3.0 is here:
> http://tinyurl.com/f56qm
>
> This includes bugs that were discovered in 2.5 but which still need
> fixing in 3.0.
>
> I am considering three options for setting the Squid-3.0.PRE4 release
> criteria:
>
> -----
>
> Option 1 - severity based
> We release PRE4 when all the criticals and blockers have been fixed.
>
> Option 2 - hand-picked
> We hand pick a fixed list of bugs which we think we can fix within a
> reasonably short time. We release when they are all fixed. No other
> bugs can enter the list once it is picked.
>
> Option 3 - time based
> We release PRE4 on June 1, and fix whatever bugs we can until then
> (blockers first).
>
> -----
>
> Option 1 could leave us vulnerable to a never-ending flow of new
> criticals/blockers. I understand something like this happened in the
> past. Are we still vulnerable to this or has the real level of
> serious bugs dropped to a quantifiable level yet? The benefit of this
> option is that PRE4 "means" something positive about the level of
> known defects. But if the cost is too high, e.g. we never get PRE4
> out, then I'm not prepared to do this.
>
> Options 2 and 3 have the benefit of having fixed criteria, but at the
> cost of PRE4 not meaning much about its quality. E.g. why don't we
> release PRE4 today?
>
> In principle I prefer Option 1, but if it's too risky then I'd go for
> Option 3.
>
> Please could you reply to this email and vote for Option 1, 2 or 3
> with brief reason.
>
> And as Henrik says, if you've got new stuff in the pipeline, please
> shout now. We just need to agree which PRE it goes into - whether 4
> or later.

2 or 3. I think 2 is better.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.