Enhancements as opposed to bugs

[Kevin Gunn]

Something that I have not pushed very hard but is something I prefer is to
place features in relevant blueprints and keep bugs as bugs.

I haven't pushed the blueprint vs bug mainly because the team has been both
responsive to correctly followup and responsible in understanding the
difference. And people do track bugs very well whereas blueprints are less
adopted in that sense of continuous followup.

What do you think of using blueprints for bugs-which-are-really-features ?

I don't mind leaving the bug open as "wishlist" & linking it.
i will say, having a feature on a blueprint is a great way for it not to be
overlooked/forgotten/lost with respect to roadmap planning.

br,kg



On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Daniel van Vugt <
daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:

> We always seem to have lots of enhancements logged as bugs in the Mir
> project. And we seem to have a requirement that many of them be more
> important than "Wishlist" which is what LP historically uses to represent
> enhancements.
>
> So assuming we can't convince everyone that all enhancements should be
> Importance==Wishlist, how about some other formal approach?
>
> Maybe prefix all enhancements as "[enhancement]" ?
>
> - Daniel
>
> --
> Mir-devel mailing list
> Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/mir-devel<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/mir-devel/attachments/20131015/995587ec/attachment.html>