Papercuts: status and a top 10 list from the wiki [ode to Papercuts remixed (was Re: What's the status of papercuts?)]

Wayne Mery (d531) vseerror at Lehigh.EDU
Thu Dec 27 19:58:13 UTC 2012


On 7/30/2012 3:20 PM, Kent James wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 7:11 AM, Mike Conley wrote:
>> Thanks Kent, for doing this.
>>
>>>
>>> So there you have it, my top 10 list! I will be championing these bugs,
>>> and I urge others (in the spirit of cooperation with the project and the
>>> community) to also champion these bugs in the short run.
>>>
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the plan that each committed
>> papercut-fixer was going to get 5 bugs to work on and complete in < 1
>> year?
>
> Yes, but ...
>
> 1) We don't really have a viable process yet to choose "official"
> papercut bugs. The first attempt using a wiki is awkward, yet I wanted
> to take what I could to do a start to an "official" papercuts list so
> that we could get started. We have awhile to fill in with additional bugs.
>
> 2) With future TB 17 ESR now in comm-central, this is a critical time
> for all of us to push bugs that we know need to be landed, while the
> papercuts bug timescale is a little longer.
>
> 3) It is really important to me that we effectively engage with the
> broader Thunderbird community to get key issues identified, brought to
> the attention of developers, and solved. We need to figure out a way to
> get the key contributors in BMO and GS engaged in this. Some are, but
> there are some noticable gaps.
>
> So this list is a compromise between "let's get going" and "leave some
> room for additional bugs with a better process".
>
> rkent
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning

tanstaafl has inquired about the papercut bugs/process, specifically how 
a bug gets on the papercut list. I didn't create it but I do support it, 
and so I hope the following changes I made sound reasonable ... given 
the apparent lack of clarity on the wiki.  I have:

  1. removed "concensus", which was never defined, in favor acceptance 
defined as "one or more votes" after nomination

  2. specified that *bug nominators* are tasked with adding tb-papercut 
to the bugzilla whiteboard (but perhaps it should be the first voter?)

Both items essential - because presently there are 38 bugs with votes 
making them worthy - but only 6 bugs are marked tb-papercut in bugzilla.

If anyone has useful improvements to improve the papercuts process 
please take the initiative to make those changes.


There is a second subject to tackle, namely the dormancy/deadness of 
papercuts.  I do hope papercuts is only dormant and not dead, which is 
the subject of my next message.



More information about the tb-planning mailing list