[Lazarus] Linux Journal article

[Andrew Brunner]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Mattias
Gaertner<nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> wrote:
>
> All bugs in the 0.9.28 section stops the release of 0.9.28. They are
> all stop-release bugs.

I am going to say this for the benefit of all when I say that this
should not be the case.  Taking months if not years between releases
makes this project look untouched, outdated, and dead.  I for one
think it's come far enough to have quarterly releases.

>> I see a "Major" tag assigned to a scroll key getting stuck.  To me,
>> this is not "Stop-Release" kind of bug but it is listed as a Major
>> flaw.  While this flaw was marked as "Major" it should never be
>> flagged as a "Stop-Release" flag.
>
> It's a pretty annoying bug, but luckily it appears only on few
> machines. So the "Major" depends on pov.

No.  I disagree.  It should not stop the release at all.  Point of
views are not relavent in a "Stop-Release" flag.  If adopted, we
should come up with a specific criteria for such a flag.  Data
corruption would be primary candidate - or Test if you will.

>> Q: Out of all outstanding bugs... How many would be "Stop-Release"
>> flagged ?
>
> All.
> If a bug's annoyance level can be lowered far enough or if no good fix
> can be found, then it can be moved to the next version.

I think that a work in progress (Agile) with quarterly release
schedules would certainly benefit the project as far as repeat
visitors and prospective contributors.