Limits and Deadlines?

[P Botha]

On Sunday 14 August 2005 21:42, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Sunday 14 August 2005 21:26, P Botha wrote:
> > I've given this idea some though (obviously other people have thought of
> > this also), but maybe one could put some deadlines for bugfixes.
> >
> > Eg: Konqueror must have less than 1000bugs by 31 Dec 2005... get the
> > idea?Just after the 3.5 release, one could maybe try and suggest this.
>
> The main problem with this is that there has to be a list of certified
> bugs. A lot of entries in the bug tracking system do not apply to the
> current versions, are unreproducible or to vague.
>
> Sometimes the reporters do not respond when asked for more details or are
> not capable of providing them (for example in case of Konqueror because the
> site is some intranet site or needs a user account, etc)
>
> Developers usually don't ignore bug reports, but they might have different
> priorities for each of them.
>
> > Thus, to ensure stability in the 4.0 release, one could try to ensure
> > that about 60% of current unique bugs are eliminated(duplicates doesn't
> > count)?
>
> Maybe if a couple more volunteers would help to elimited the duplicates
> first? :)
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
Maybe one could try and run through the apps and certify the bugs? 
Priorities.. yes. One can't work without priorities. 

If a bug does not apply to a current version, but has some sort of 
reproducibility, one should check it out. 

I'm trying to get people around here (in ZA/South Africa) into KDE, but either 
they are kernel dev's, or have heard the word linux. I normally check the 
bugs out and check if I can reproduce it on my system and then give some 
comments and compare stack traces. .. have got into the whole qt thing.

Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-quality/attachments/20050814/d55ab8d3/attachment.pgp