[dmd-internals] regressions, criticals, and blockers

Brad Roberts braddr at puremagic.com
Fri Apr 27 21:38:06 PDT 2012


On 4/27/2012 7:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 17:38:49 Walter Bright wrote:
>> The severity level is set by the submitter. I think that we can either spend
>> time arguing over what severity level it should be, or we can spend the
>> time fixing them.
> 
> True, but there's something to be said for either fixing all blockers or 
> changing them to critical with any given release, since it can't really be a 
> blocker if it doesn't block the release.
> 
> Regardless, I thought that I should point out the fact that blockers really 
> aren't treated that way at all, making that severity level a bit pointless as 
> it stands.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

There's at least two definitions for blocker here:

 1) should block the release
 2) blocks the submitters project -- ie, no work around known

Bug submitters are almost certainly treating the severity as the latter.

For DMD and related releases, we haven't even achieved the presumably easier goal of no regressions.  We've gotten
better at no new regressions.  Until we hit that goal, I'm not overly stressed about hitting the goal of zero critical
bugs and zero blocker bugs.  Making progress on all three of those is a very good plan, but I very much want to see a
zero regression release policy.  We're so close to it already.

For what it's worth, 4 of the 10 regressions are tagged with the pull keyword.  0 of 11 blockers have pull requests.
That assumes that the pull keyword is accurate, which isn't a great assumption.

My 2 cents,
Brad




More information about the dmd-internals mailing list