On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 21:43:39 +0200, Reinier Lamers wrote: > > I think we should have a goal of making sure that there are zero > > chatting/unread bugs in the tracker, including those masquerading as > > other statuses, but for now focusing on the ones that are openly so. > > Just keep things moving along. > > How do you think we should treat bugs where the original reporter answers > only > slowly? With those, you can't have zero chatting bugs.
Those would be stuck on need-info as long as we're waiting on the original reporter. There's one thing I still don't know how to model very well, which is when we depend on bugs into other software. I guess for now, those too should be need-info (is it fixed yet?) Also to be clear: the zero-chatting bugs ideal doesn't mean we don't set bugs to chatting just that we aim to have zero 'huh?'ness in the tracker. Better to be clear that a bug has popped out of its triage state and back into chatting than hiding behind a false action. > Also, there's a long-term urgent bug which is that there are too few people > who understand the darcs 2 core. It would be awesome if someone could > take the time to explain the solution of issue 1014 to someone. Yeah :-( Perhaps at the hacking sprints, we should set aside a little bit of darcs 2 study session time. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpzSdaHcdzsw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
