On 2/10/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Σαβ, Φεβ 10, at 12:02 Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > Secondly, if what Ag is suggesting and Dan agreed with is > > lumping a bunch of typos/dead links/whatever into one ticket and > > keeping it open until all are resolved (even if that means other > > issues are added to it while it is open), then fine. > > > > Actually,this is exactly what I was thinking. > > And this is what Dan said: > I agree with what you're saying about permanent tickets. It's just > nice to collect a bunch of little things in one spot.
Yeah, this what I had in mind, too. Not so much a permanent ticket as a sort of conglomerate ticket. > Randy McMurchy wrote: > > But if what is being suggested is that even if all the issues in a > > ticket have been resolved, and then the ticket isn't closed, then > > I lean the other way. I just can't see what's wrong with opening a > > new ticket. I like looking at recently entered tickets to see what > > may be "hot" (simply looking at the list as I sort it by ticket > > number). By all means, however, a discussion could provoke better > > ideas that could be implemented. Agreed. I'd close the ticket if all the issues were resolved. I have no problem opening and closing tickets. What I'd like to avoid is #2400: Typo in vim #2401: Typo in emacs ... Since, as an editor, it's much nicer to just knock out a bunch of these little issues at once. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
