|| ||Barry Warsaw <barry-AT-python.org>|
|| ||"Guido van Rossum" <guido-AT-python.org>|
|| ||Re: Change in priority fields|
|| ||Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:49:01 -0500|
|| ||Neal Norwitz <nnorwitz-AT-gmail.com>, PyDev <python-dev-AT-python.org>|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> What do I do for something that should absolutely go into the 2.6final
> release (say) but is otherwise pretty minor? I've been using critical
> to make sure it doesn't get put off until past the release.
Critical is the right one to use. Neal and I will basically be moving
issues between 'release blocker' and 'critical' with the former
meaning this issue blocks the upcoming release. The latter means it
will (probably) block an upcoming release. I think when we make a
major milestone, e.g. the first beta, the first release candidate,
etc., we'll triage those critical and move some up to release blockers.
We should not release the finals until there are no release blockers
or criticals. Either the critical gets moved to high and ignored, or
it gets moved to release blocker and gets fixed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Python-Dev mailing list
to post comments)