I consider "fixed xxx" and "fixed proposed" as two
statuses, not 16 (but that is up to your interpretation
what counts as a status). One reason for proposing this
"cryptic" version is to enable automatic sorting. One can
write a program to search "fixed" and "fixed proposed" and
then parse xxx to filter out those that are fixed or not
fixed, or proposed or not proposed for any of the flavors.
This program will allow users to do searches and be
presented only with a particular xxx view.
As long as the bit vector is documented, it is no more
cryptic than other code. A bit vector is the most
efficient of data representation. Since each axiom has its
own bit, it is easy to even spot the status visually.
If you use comments after "fixed" and "fixed proposed",
someone will have to read the comments manually and sort
the bug reports manually. It would be better to know ahead
of reading the comments what one is about to read.
In the best scenario, the code xxx would only go through 4
values (starting with 000 and increasing by changing a 0
to a 1, at most three times).
William
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:54:55 -0500
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I must say that I do not like the sound of "fixed
somewhere" - it
sounds too vague - but I understand the intent. Maybe it
would be
better to write:
"fixed as noted ..."
And then expect to find a comment saying in which
versions/forks the
fix occurs. This is almost like you are doing now except
for the
distinction between "as noted" and "proposed" (patch
attached to the
bug report).
I don't think William intended 7 different statuses. The
parameter can
be included as a comment. But I do not see any point in
being so
cryptic.
Regards,
Bill Page.
On 26 Jan 2008 09:47:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I like this proposal equally well. Comments?
Oops, sorry, I don't understand it: it would imply
having 7
additional statuses too. I don't think it's possible to
have
a "variable" status?
The point is being able to filter out all issues that
are
'fixed somewhere.'
Martin
>
> "William Sit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dear Martin:
> >
> > May I suggest using a bit vector to notate the
fixes? I propose
> > that the bits of the bit vector be assigned
according to chronological
> > order of axiom branches, so that bit 0 is for Tim's
Axiom, bit 1 for
> > FriCAS and bit 2 for OpenAxiom, etc. So we need only
two status:
> > fixed xxx and fixed proposed xxx for now. The bit
vector is extensible
> > if more flavors come along.
> >
> > Example: "fixed 101" means patches exist and
implemented for
> > OpenAxiom and for Tim's Axiom, each patch according
to the
> > requirements of the flavor.
> >
> > "fixed proposed 010" means a patch exist (proposed)
but not
> > implemented (for whatever reasons) on FriCAS.
> >
> > "fixed 000" means no patch implemented
> >
> > "fixed proposed 000" means no patch proposed
(implies of
> > course "fixed 000").
> >
> > You may forward this to the groups or disregard as
you
> > please.
> >
> > William
> >
> >
> > On 25 Jan 2008 22:11:55 +0100
> > Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I have just added a new bug status "fixed
somewhere".
> > >
> > > Please use "fix proposed" and "fixed somewhere"
according
> > > to the following rules:
> > >
> > >> 1) fix proposed
> > >> would be used if a patch is attached, but it
hasn't been
> > >> fixed in one of the systems
> > >> 2) fixed somewhere would be used if the issue is
fixed
> > >> somewhere, regardless whether a patch is included
or
> > >> not.
> > >> ...
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
William Sit,
Professor of Mathematics, City College of New York
Office: R6/202C Tel: 212-650-5179, Fax: 212-862-0004
Home Page: http://scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~wyscc/
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
