Gervase Markham wrote: >> I deserved that one, I suppose :-) Ok, one of the reason I have not >> yet gone a-hacking on the code is that I'm not quite sure of the >> procedure. So, I found a bug in the above category, 50630, that looks >> like good fun. >> >> Now I'm supposed to: >> 1) Assign the bug to me, that is [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Presuming no-one else is working on it (check the comments and bug > activity to see if there are any signs of life.)
This is the hardest part. Despite the helpwanted keyword this bug was actually being worked on, it appears. Only the only way I could see this was that when I took the bug, the owner complained (as he should, of course). Quite frustrating. I'm not exactly keen to work on bugs that has been dead for several semesters... their age would indicate that this bug is controversial, difficult to fix, no longer relevant or something. > > If that document doesn't explain the procedure clearly enough (it > should) please let me know which bits are unclear. It lacks a section: How to find bugs that can be "safely" taken. E.g. from other parts of the mozilla.org's homepage (the QA section) I had come under the impression that the "help-wanted" bugs was "free" --- and this was not the case :-( My ears are still burning... my apologies, yet again, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for doing this. Besides this, if the procedure listed could include the full lifecycle of bug-fixing, this would be great. Currently, it only does from "ok, I've fixed the bug. Now what?" (Except for the excellent section on code guidelines, etc. of course). regards, Esben P.s: Thanks for your time!
