Papercuts remixed (was Re: What's the status of papercuts?)
ludovic at mozilla.com
Tue Aug 7 11:09:42 UTC 2012
On 7/12/12 5:42 PM, Kent James wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 8:04 AM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> really high-vote bugs also end up being "really complicated
>> things"--of the top 49 bugs by vote counts, there are maybe 5 bugs
>> which wouldn't require major invasive changes somewhere.
> One good example of that is bug 105169 "Filter for attachments". MIME
> information (such as attachment name or even existence) is not
> available at the time that filters are executed. It's a major backend
> change (with possible negative performance implications) to provide
> MIME information at that point.
> My first impulse was to toss those out of the "papercut" list as too
> complex, but as I think about it maybe what we should do is to tie
> these high-vote bugs to specific backend rework projects that we have
> talked about doing. (and actually "filter for attachments" is really
> an enhancement and not a failure to meet design specifications ("true
> bug"). I really think we need to focus on "true bugs" first).
I like that idea - true bugs first and enhancement laters.
How do you deal with bugs that *need* a redesign in that case (/me looks
at the AB) ?
How Many bugs should we extract from bugzilla to work on ?
How do we deal with perf in the long term (ie thinking something along
the line of snappy) ?
@lhirlimann on twitter
my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/collections/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4435 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the tb-planning