deeper freeze

[Rob Kaper]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:43:29AM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> You mix up things. I didn't talk about importance of applications, but
> about importance of user data. I simpy do not consider a patience session
> as important as a mail folder.

By that logic a regression to patience would not be as serious as one to a
mail folder either, so there's no need to advocate a deeper freeze for
applications without important user data.

(Besides, games don't use mail folders and KMail doesn't do patience
sessions, so that *would* make applications such as KMail more important by
definition.)

From what I understood from the original mail, the problem is that freeze
policies aren't respected. Changing policies won't solve the problem of
people ignoring policies, especially not when adding restrictions based on
subjective arguments.

If developers cannot fix minor bugs anymore, we'd actually punish those who
don't have any outstanding major bugs, whether that definition inherits from
"importance of user data" or not.

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "In the name of sheer pity, won't someone operate on
cap at capsi.com | Chairman Arafat and put that poor cancer into a cleaner
www.capsi.com | environment? -- Rick Brookhiser
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20031112/6565ff75/attachment.sig>