Use of "Future"

[MattyT]

On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 09:48, Gervase Markham wrote:

> > Well, as I said, I think the solution to that part of the problem is
> > providing a strong "target" concept for future releases (2.20 could be
> > mod_perl and cleanups and user-facing templatization, 
> Surely this is exactly what we've moved away from with date-based releases?

Feature and date based releases are about (not) making commitments. 
Target milestones are a best guess and guide, they were never
commitments.  If they were, we wouldn't be using them at all, since
we're not making commitments now.  Even the name "target milestone"
suggests no commitments, as targets are things that get missed (unless
you're Robin Hood).  So they're totally independent.

> IMO, we need some way for people (including us) to get an idea of what 
> is currently planned to be fixed in the next milestone. The "Milestone" 
> field seems a good choice for this. Ideally, the number of bugs planned 
> for 2.20 (for example), should start at X and decline gradually to zero 
> about six months later.

We already have this - two ways in fact.  Both having an active
assignee, and the ASSIGNED status.

-- 
         Matthew Tuck: Software Developer & All-Round Nice Guy        
 My Short Autobiography: 1985 Grade Bin Monitor 1990 Class Clown Award
1992 Awarded Most Likely To Spontaneously Combust 1996 Crowned Galactic
         Emperor 1998 Released From Smith Psychiatric Hospital