[development] critical bugs vs release (candidate)

Ray Zimmerman rz10 at cornell.edu
Wed Mar 1 13:46:52 UTC 2006

On 28 Feb 2006, at 22:23, Dries Buytaert wrote:
> We're down to 13 critical bugs.
> I guess we'll release a beta 5?  I don't think we had 0 critical  
> bugs left when we released either Drupal 4.5 or Drupal 4.6 but I'm  
> willing to try.  I have this feeling that it might take us many  
> more weeks to fix them all.

On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
> Why not RC , really?

Disclaimer: I'm relatively new around here, so please ignore this if  
the community already has clearly defined conventions for these that  
I'm not aware of.

In order for the terms "critical bug" and "release candidate" to  
carry consistent meaning, I would suggest that we insist on getting  
down to 0 critical bugs before release. IMHO, either a bug is not  
critical or the code is not ready for release (i.e. not a release  
candidate). If that is not the case, then it sounds to me like we  
need yet another higher priority level for "show stopper" bugs.

Consistent with that, "release candidate" to me means, "this is the  
version we plan to release if no critical issues arise in the next x  
days", in which case I think we might be ready for a beta 5, but not  
for a RC.

On a related note, I think it would be useful to have a link on the  
issue submission pages that points to a help page with some  
guidelines clarifying the options for the different fields (e.g. how  
to decide whether to report a bug as normal or critical, etc).

Thanks to all of you for making Drupal happen,


More information about the development mailing list