All,
Could somebody tell me the advantage of changing the milestone of tickets that
have been closed for more than 10 months ? I'm genuinely curious.
P.
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
It's so we can see what bugs are actually fixed for 2.0 (as opposed to a
prior release), and a bug that's marked 'closed' but Unscheduled simply
doesn't make sense to me.
-Mark
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
Could somebody tell me the advantage of
On May 31, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
It's so we can see what bugs are actually fixed for 2.0 (as opposed to a
prior release), and a bug that's marked 'closed' but Unscheduled simply
doesn't make sense to me.
I'm sorry, I'm still failing to see the logic.
* You're not sure
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
It's so we can see what bugs are actually fixed for 2.0 (as opposed to a
prior release), and a bug that's marked 'closed' but Unscheduled simply
doesn't make sense to me.
On 05/31/2011 10:33 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com
mailto:pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
It's so we can see what bugs are actually fixed for 2.0 (as
opposed to a prior release),
On May 31, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
On 05/31/2011 10:33 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
It's so we can see what bugs are actually fixed for 2.0 (as opposed to a
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Bruce Southey wrote:
On 05/31/2011 10:33 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
Tue, 31 May 2011 11:44:15 -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
[clip]
I find very commendable to strive for consistency, mind you. I'm just
not not very comfortable with the idea of modifying old records a
posteriori to adjust to new policies...
I was under the impression this already was the policy,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
Tue, 31 May 2011 11:44:15 -0500, Mark Wiebe wrote:
[clip]
I find very commendable to strive for consistency, mind you. I'm just
not not very comfortable with the idea of modifying old records a
posteriori to adjust to new
On May 31, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
It is helpful to have this cleaned up, thanks Mark for taking the time for
this.
Mind you, I do agree with y'all for the cleaning up. I just had a shock when I
received the batch of what I thought were brand new bugs that turned up to have
10 matches
Mail list logo
