On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:57 +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:51 +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > > Cool, thanks. > > > > On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:43 , Norbert Hartl wrote: > > > > > I have created issues for all of the fixes mentioned on > > > > > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ThreeDotTenFixes > > > > > > After that I scanned the numbering (I chose the summary to include > > > the number at beginning for sorting) and closed to gaps. The gaps > > > have type comment and appear on the open issues list. I didn't take > > > the time to scan mantis for the mantis number which includes the > > > fix. We can arrange that. > > > > > > All issues have "Type-Squeak" being source of a squeak version fix > > > and "Fixed" as a status. My proposal is that everyone takes tickets > > > produces slices from it and changes the status to verified after > > > uploading. > > > > Unless the fix is trivial , I would still follow the normal process > > and first set the state to Fixed and then have somebody else verify > > the change. > > > Yes, i thought about this. But then this issues are already fixes > and the person that incorporates them is not the author of the > fix. Therefor it is already a fix and the reviewing/slicing is > a verification. But I understand what you mean. Shall I set all > stati to new? That would have the opportunity that they appear in > the open issues list. > Aehem, I changed it already. There is a bulk edit.. option in the issue tracker so this was only a handful of clicks. Very cool!
So all are new. So the purity of the process is been kept :) Norbert > Norbert > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
