*All* confirmed issues should go in Trac. That's really the whole point of it.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Richard Haselgrove <r.haselgr...@btinternet.com> wrote: > Charlie Fenton wrote: > > >> Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't aware of this issue; >> I've asked Rom to check into it and to restore those versions if needed. > > I'm not surprised that you weren't aware of it, but isn't that an inevitable > consequence of running a development model with - today - 221 unresolved > trac tickets, 190 of them punted into the long grass beyond milestone 6.10? > And that's without the current bugs being discovered in v6.6.20 and later: > in accordance with guidance, I have been reporting those to boinc_alpha > instead of trac for the current milestone, but with little effect. > > I am sorely tempted to start polluting trac again, so we have a searchable > index of the issues which otherwise are in danger of underflowing the LIFO > stack which is David Anderson's inbox. > > > _______________________________________________ > boinc_dev mailing list > boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu > http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev > To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and > (near bottom of page) enter your email address. > _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
