Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: I suggest we postpone release 14 days
Re: I suggest we postpone release 14 days
From: RafaŽl Carrť <rafael.carre_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:42:33 +0100
Le 29/12/09 20:08, Jonathan Gordon a ťcrit :
> Ive tried getting the discussion started twice already.
I assume you wanted to talk about the high number of opened bugs on
I don't think a high number of opened bugs should prevent releases to
In your mail from 17th Dec, you say:
> we thought
> that the current code isnt up to scratch, but to my knowledge there
I don't remember seeing this discussion, but I might have missed it for
not being much present these last months.
> has been no talk about what needs fixing and what bugs we are happy to
> sit on the tracker.
I know one things that needs fixing (FS#10603 for Fuze/e200v2) although
it is not blocking the release.
I am happy to sit on the tracker all the bugs that do not have someone
interested in fixing them.
In fact considering the number of rockbox features, I find it normal
that the number of bugs increase over time.
Note: the number of real bugs inside rockbox doesn't necessarily scales
with the number of opened bugs on flyspray because of:
- user confusion (like "rockblox1d is only 1 dimension")
- bugs present in RB but not found
- bugs fixed without the task being closed
- work in progress (bugs on Clipv1, Nano2G)
At this moment there is no bug with "Critical" Severity,
and one bug with "High" Severity (specific to unstable Nano2G)
Assuming Severity defines if one bug should block releases, then we can
just go toward 3.5
> Also I don't
> necessarily agree about the quality, I just stated facts.
I use current builds daily without problems, I see no problems with
quality on my side.
-- RafaŽl Carrť