Christian Kurz wrote:
Well what is the problem with this? I don't see any offence in getting a
message that says that I (the maintainer) has still open bug over a
certain age. I think this is a good reminder for the maintainers as you
may forget to fix bugs. Take a look at the ppp-package and
Dale Scheetz wrote:
One way to deal with this is to just mark all your bugs as wish list. The
nags don't react to wish list bugs ;-)
I hope you arn't seriously advocating that. It's fine for you, if you can
keep straight whoch of the bugs are real bugs that need to be fixed. But if
anyone else
On Mon, 24 May 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
Dale Scheetz wrote:
One way to deal with this is to just mark all your bugs as wish list. The
nags don't react to wish list bugs ;-)
I hope you arn't seriously advocating that. It's fine for you, if you can
keep straight whoch of the bugs are real
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled.
Absolutely. I've asked before for the nag widget to be turned off, and I
strongly support turning it off now.
Yes, I have a couple of packages
Hi,
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I mean, fix bugs. Then they can be closed. I am aware that
John not all bugs have easy solutions, but just because the solution
John isn't easy doesn't mean that it is any less important to fix
John it.
And unwanted, and
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:00:19AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I mean, fix bugs. Then they can be closed. I am aware that
John not all bugs have easy solutions, but just because the solution
John isn't easy doesn't mean that it is
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 03:24:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone wishing to have a reminder of bug status may choose to subscribe
to a report.
Closing bugs just because you can't fix them is wrong.
I *NEVER* said that one ought to do
Hi,
Hamish == Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish What does that treatment involve exactly?
My lawyer says I should not answer this question.
Hamish Personally I can't see what the fuss is; I'd just delete it if
Hamish I didn't like it.
Ah, the classic refrain of
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
John I don't get such a report.
Because, unlike the nag reports, the
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone wishing to have a reminder of bug status may choose to subscribe
to a report.
Closing bugs just because you can't fix them is wrong.
I *NEVER* said that one ought to do that, and AFAIK, nobody else did
either.
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 21 May 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
I don't get such a report.
Probably because you are
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
I don't get such a report.
If this was simply a report to the list, once in a while, like the
critical bugs that need to be fixed list, there
Why don't you close the bugs?
Adrian Bridgett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. Brian White is no longer the release manager, so he has no special
privilege to send mails like this.
What special priviledge is necessary? The very fact that the bug has
been open for that long I think entitles anyone to send them out.
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:33:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Why don't you close the bugs?
I need a time machine :-)
Too many projects on, and I'm afraid that recently my Debian commitments
have suffered at the hands of other projects.
Adrian
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hi,
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. Brian White is no longer the release manager, so he has no special
privilege to send mails like this.
John What special priviledge is necessary? The very fact that the bug has
John
Hi,
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
John I don't get such a report.
Because, unlike the nag reports, the
On 21 May 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
I don't get such a report.
Probably because you are not subscribed to the bug-report mailing list ;-)
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:34:16PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Wrong. Brian White is no longer the release manager, so he has no special
privilege to send mails like this.
What special priviledge is necessary? The very fact that the bug has
been open for that long I think entitles anyone
Brian I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out on master.
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
At 21:28 -0400 1999-05-19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out on master.
Wtf do you mean subscribe? None of us signed up for the
Brian I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Dirk Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out
Dirk on master.
Joel Wtf do you mean subscribe? None of us signed up for the fucking
Joel thing!
At 22:26 -0400 1999-05-19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Dirk Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out
Dirk on master.
Joel Wtf do you mean subscribe? None of us
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 10:26:11PM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
You are subscribed to a mailing list debian-devel, aren't you?
Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
subscribed to that. :p
--
Brian Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Linux Developer -
[DONT SEND ME A CC!]
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
[You don't need to send me an extra Cc as I read the lists on which I
write. Thanks!]
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
Branden
Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:24:19PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
Well what is the problem with this? I don't see any offence in getting a
message that says that I (the maintainer) has still open bug over a
certain age. I think this is a good reminder
Brian Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
Brian subscribed to that. :p
All I'm saying: Everybody is free to procmail away whatever they don't like.
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:48:25AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: I've got an open old bug report that flying
(a X11 pool game) doesn't support 16/24 bit displays. The upstream
This would speak for making the mechanismen configurable. Would
Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:48:25AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
Christian Meder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: I've got an open old bug report that flying
(a X11 pool game) doesn't support 16/24 bit displays. The upstream
This would speak
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 06:47:28AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
Brian subscribed to that. :p
All I'm saying: Everybody is free to procmail away whatever they don't like.
This sounds like a good idea - send
At 18:10 +0100 1999-05-20, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 06:47:28AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
Brian subscribed to that. :p
All I'm saying: Everybody is free to procmail away whatever they don't
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
At 18:10 +0100 1999-05-20, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 06:47:28AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I
never
Brian subscribed to that. :p
All I'm saying:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open.
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
And what do you propose should be done with bugs that are so old? Still
let them stay open and look somewhere else? No, that isn't a solution.
The solution is to contact the developer and ask them about the bugs and
try to track
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent
out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 12:35:27PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
twice a week to every developer.
It does? It sure didn't send that anything like that to me...
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 11:08:02AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
Considering the X bug list, I'm sure branden got a quite large mailing from
'Nag'
about old bugs - yet from what I understand, he can't possibly go through
that list
until some modifications are done to the BTS. 'Nag' also goes
[You don't need to send me an extra Cc as I read the lists on which I
write. Thanks!]
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm
Brian Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
And what do you propose should be done with bugs that are so old? Still
let them stay open and look somewhere else? No, that isn't a solution.
The solution is to contact the developer and
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:28:16PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'd like to correct you on this point.
I can and do periodically go through the massive list of ancient bugs
against X. It's just too much for me to handle. In many cases there is
too little information in the bug report for
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:28:33PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
So where's the problem with getting an reminder about your old open
bugs, which you need to fix?
I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to TURN THE
BLOODY
THING OFF.
--
Brian Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
[You don't need to send me an extra Cc as I read the lists on which I
write. Thanks!]
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:24:19PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
Well what is the problem with this? I don't see any offence in getting a
message that says that I (the maintainer) has still open bug over a
certain age. I think this is a good reminder for the maintainers as you
may forget to fix
Brian Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:28:33PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
So where's the problem with getting an reminder about your old open
bugs, which you need to fix?
I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to TURN THE
BLOODY
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:35:46PM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
Ah, I see. I thought I recalled you saying something on a list that having
something
added to the BTS would make your job easier...I stand corrected.
Oh, I'm sure there are. But Brian's nag mails seem to be utterly
orthogonal to
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
recent bugs too.
(or do we need a vote or something)
Cheers
Adrian
email:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
recent bugs too.
I would rather see the old bugs closed. An old bug
At 19:59 +0100 1999-05-18, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
recent bugs too.
To me,
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
Adrian Bridgett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
recent bugs too.
No, these bugs
50 matches
Mail list logo
