Hello,
So there is no goal for actual FCS quality ?
By letting the target date take priority over everything else and
move enough bugs to P4 just for the sake of a dead line is ....
Pretending that the quality part of a deadline is something less
important then the date part just because the quality is a less
absolute , harder to quantify
and its easy to hide on paper is that a way that make you feel good and
proud as a software engineer?.
Perhaps its the FCS date that is too narrow and not the P3 bugs that are
too many ?
It scares me that you believe that the solution for this problem is one
sided only.
So why do you have 2 parameters for FCS ? the date is the only part that
is the real target anyhow.
best regards
gustav trede
Dhiru Pandey wrote:
> Hello GlassFish Developers,
>
> We are almost done with GlassFish V2/9.1 Beta. Thanks again to all of
> you for making this possible.
>
> Now its time to focus on FCS for this release - in particular fixing
> P3 bugs required for FCS.
>
> We have too many P3 bugs currently:
>
> P3 bugs on *Issue Tracker* (436 currently)
> <https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/buglist.cgi?Submit+query=Submit+query&issue_type=DEFECT&component=glassfish&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&priority=P3&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&field0-0-0=reporter&type0-0-0=notequals&value0-0-0=gfbugbridge&field1-0-0=status_whiteboard&type1-0-0=notequals&value1-0-0=as91-na&field2-0-0=subcomponent&type2-0-0=notequals&value2-0-0=sqe-test&cmdtype=doit&namedcmd=All+JDBC%2FJMS%2FJCA+bugs&newqueryname=&or%0Ader=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time>
> P3 bugs on *Bugster* (468 currently)
> <http://monaco.sfbay/list.jsf?product=sunone_application_server&hook4Opt=2&hook5Opt=2&area=Defect&CRrelease=null%2C9*&hook5=82to91-fp-na&hook4=as91-na%2Cas91-fixed%2Cas91-beta-waived&hook3=sjsmq-issues&title=Open+Bugs+with+Target+Release+9*%2C+null&hook2=as9-na&subcategory=bugbridge_test,docs,proxy_plugin,sample_apps,test_sqe&priority=3&sbOpt=2¬Subcategory=on&sb=glassfish-bugbridge%40sun.com&lh=1&hook2Opt=2&hook3Opt=2&fields=7.-.-.7,4.a.l.20&fieldids=59,7,36,4,51,54,1,76,90>
>
> We need to do a triage on these bugs and decide which of these bugs
> must be fixed for FCS. Currently, there may be bugs that are
> classified as P3 bugs which may not be required for this release or
> may be some corner case that has been misclassified as a P3, etc. We
> need to separate these bugs out.
>
> In working towards that goal, please evaluate your P3 bugs and mark
> all those bugs that *absolutely need to be fixed by FCS* by doing the
> following:
>
> *On Issue Tracker* - Please add the keyword *as91-fcs* in the Status
> whiteboard field for all such P3 bugs
> *On Bugster* - Please add the keyword *as91-fcs* in Hook6 field for
> all such P3 bugs. Please ensure that all P3 bugs that are S1 (severity
> 1) are marked by adding this keyword to Hook6 field
>
> Please work towards getting this done by *COB 2/16/2007*
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dhiru & Sridatta