I guess I jumped the gun a little with this one. Two thing have happened since my original email:
1. I came across this old report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/275450 2. I was reading Bugs/Importance <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance> so I could write our own OneHundredPaperCuts/Importance<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneHundredPaperCuts/Importance> and I realise my original argument for excluding localisation issues is contradicted by by action on that report, which is backed up by some of the things in Bugs/Importance. The bug will only affect a relatively small number of users, but the affect will be severe, and Bugs/Importance allowed for a 'server impact on a small number of users'. I think we need to have a discussion on the definition of a paper cut before going any further. These incremental changes (which are all my fault) are doing no one any good. I'll also start a new thread for it. Sorry for all the hassle. Chris On 1 January 2013 19:40, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 January 2013 18:23, Timothy Arceri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I dont see why we are restricting papercuts like this. I have helped fix >> a number of locale issues through papercut reports, either by allocating >> the bug to the right place in launchpad or by reporting it to the right >> place upstream > > > This is how I think we should handle all bugs that we're not going to look > at ourselves - forward them to someone who will. > > >> no more kde, > > > I believe this was necessary. If we're going to support Kubuntu, then we > would also need to support Xubuntu and Lubuntu, and by focusing only on > Ubuntu, we can target more bugs there than we would be able to had we split > ourselves over multiple desktops. > > >> no locale bugs isn't that what caused the project to die off in the first >> place no bugs for people work on? > > > The restrictions that caused the project to die off the first time round > were different from these ones. Back then, it was a lot of bugs being > rejected as 'feature requests' or 'not affecting the average user', and the > biggest one was 'just a normal bug instead of a usability flaw'. It's that > last one that I think we've loosened up on which is allowing us to target > more bugs. > > >> We are still yet to have targeted 100 for this release (we are almost >> there but not yet) if anything we should be removing limitations and >> widening the project that way we also widen the range of potential >> contributers to the project. > > > I know, and I realise I've lost track of that over the past month. I'm > going to get onto this now and start asking people to send us their paper > cuts. I've also got a few ideas to make it easier to find existing paper > cuts in the current bug database. Over the next day or two I'll put > together some wiki pages for them so a discussion can begin. > > I appreciate your concern over the restrictions and the possible > implication they could have, but I feel we're only going to loose a handful > of potential paper cuts from these, while gaining many more by lightening > the definition in other areas. I really appreciate you sticking about with > the project for so long, through its ups and downs, as well as all the work > you've put into fixing the paper cuts, and I hope you'll stick about into > the future. > > Thanks, > Chris >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~papercuts-ninja Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~papercuts-ninja More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
