[Adium-devl] Effects of blogging about the beta

[Colin Barrett]

On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Christopher Forsythe wrote:

>
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24/08/2006, at 9:34 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote:
>>
>>> So 3 points that might knock down a bunch of items in the milestone:
>>>
>>> - At this point, if we drop the policy of requiring that no
>>> regressions from .89.1 be in 1.0, then we could probably cut the
>>> milestone down by 1/3.
>>
>> Wow. In my opinion, this is a majorly Bad Plan™. Regressions,
>> especially in integer releases should be seen as unacceptable
>> except in extremely rare exceptional circumstances. Ignoring
>> regressions just because this release is taking longer than
>> expected is not a way to get a good product out.
>>
>> Proxy support, which makes up 2 of the tickets marked as
>> regressions, is a pretty major part of an IM app. It once worked
>> beautifully, and on occasion (particular celestial alignments are
>> required) works okay (I actually managed to use HTTP proxying to
>> get out of my school network rather than SOCKS the other day and
>> was surprised when it worked for a while.
>>
>> I know I'm not a dev, but there are my thoughts, all the same.
>
> Alright, it was just a suggestion and everyone hated it. Let's drop  
> it.
>
> If everyone feels this way, then the best plan of action is probably
> to remove all items which are nonregressions.

I don't know if it has to be that cut and dry -- I think Evan said it  
best when regressions should have the highest priority. If we've got  
regressions, we should concentrate on fixing those, but we shouldn't  
drop all other tickets. That's a bit draconic,  don't you think?

I would suggest investigating all tickets which are regressions,  
marking them as highest, and leave it at that.

-Colin