On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 12:35 +0200, Adrian Brock wrote:

On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 12:31 -0500, Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
> I don't think it is bad to have unscheduled reports, as long as there is
> periodic review to schedule tasks. It is equally bad to use the next
> release as a dumping ground and move around deferred tasks from release
> to release.
> 
> I totally agree proper/periodic review is needed to categorize the
> importance of tasks. There was a proposal by Andrig to do this monthly
> but we didn't follow up properly.

The correct time to check all bugs have been diagnosed
is on releases. They are either dealt with or deferred.

There should be no unscheduled bugs. There should be a plan
to fix it.

The idea behind this is to keep releases from filling with everything, and them not getting reviewed. When things are directly assigned to releases, everyone just assumes it should be done, and there is no review. By having them initially unscheduled, and instituting a mandatory review, we can intelligently assign them to the proper release with the proper priority. They shouldn't remain in unscheduled for any length of time.

Before we did this, releases just grow in scope unchecked, and we cannot continue to do that.

Andrig (Andy) Miller
VP, Engineering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat