Re: TARGET2.2.x?

[Aschwin van der Woude <aschwin van der woude creanor com>]

I agree with your assessment on this bug, but I personally find it hard
to judge sometimes whether a bug deserves the 'TARGET2.2.x' keyword.

Perhaps we could come up with some rough guideline/rule of thumb how to
judge if a bug deserves it.

-A.


On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 16:28, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Urm... <ping>!
> 
> Does anyone have any opinions on this?
> 
> On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 16:38, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > Hey dudes,
> > 
> > Should we have a TARGET2.2.x keyword for bugs that should be fixed in
> > the 2.2.x series - and by 2.2.0 if possible but they are not so
> > important as bugs with the TARGET2.2.0 keyword.
> > 
> > I thought of this when bug 102149 dropped into my inbox.
> > 
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102149
> > 
> > It's not a 2.2.0 blocker, but it's broken in a usability sense.
> > 
> > What do you think?
-- 
Aschwin van der Woude <aschwin van der woude creanor com>
Creanor Oy