Re: 4.0.5: Merge Request

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > >On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Sterling Hughes wrote: > >> > >> >I think its not a bad idea to encourage (even more :) bug fixing for the > >> >next release, but I don't think restricting valuable and/or needed > >> >features is a good idea. > >> > >> You're just lazy. :) > > > >I really don't see that in my statement. I'm saying is that going > >gung-ho at fixing bugs is great, but I don't see any reason to reject > >work because it is a feature rather than a bug fix. > > Okay, wrong choice of word. I meant to say: You're just impatient. > Why couldn't you wait with those features until the bug fixing period > would be over? And adding new features is usually also adding of new > bugs.. > I could, and it wouldn't be the end of the world... I just don't see the point in restricting good work, by setting up a bug fixing freeze. If we were to have such a thing, I personally would spend the time fixing bugs, however, if another developer has a really cool feature he wants to add, I see no reason why it shouldn't go in. > >> There are these 'bugs' with type 'Feature/Change request'... so? > >There not really "bugs" in the terms that I think everyone else is > >referring to a bug as. Its just convient to place these in the bugs db. > > Hrhm..forget about it. > > Anyway, we can forget this as most of the developers seem to object the > idea of 'bug fixing freeze'. (most of them have kept their mouths shut) > I actually think the general idea is good, have a release where all the regular contributors agree to work on fixing bugs. Or like the debian folk do, have a bug squashing party. I'm just saying that a feature freeze seems un-necessary, I see no reason why we can't have our cake and eat it too... -Sterling