-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Doc Schneider writes: > I had asked Jason this and he thought I should ask the list. > > Also will we (rules project) be getting our own bugzilla? Or, will we > really need that? I currently host the sare list for our own private > rules testing. as a followup -- my reply was: You know, I don't know if there'd be a separate bugzilla. good question... I think the mostly likely thing would be that the rules project stuff would be under the (existing) Rules component in BZ. It's worth noting that we're hoping to do the work somewhere nearer the "svn and mailing list" level, so that bugzilla isn't required, necessarily, as part of the rule development workflow. I'm pretty sure the bugzilla requirement in terms of how we've been doing rules to date, is one major component of what hasn't been working, which is what we're trying to remedy with the rules project. ;) It might be worth taking that question on to the dev list, so others can chime in; let me know if that's OK (since this is a reply to a private mail). thoughts? - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFDTtjCMJF5cimLx9ARAo0lAJ9GJ5sm/CjdXTC0KdSws59CAqz8RQCff5+j 9c/QGFQrE1h09vWN79FjD0Q= =UdhO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
