On 2013-10-05, at 09:47, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 4, 2013, at 7:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> I've been advised that for application related issues tracked on Fogbugz 
>>> (e.g. for PharoLauncher) to avoid tagging the Milestone as 'Pharo3.0' - 
>>> which is reserved for image related issues.  Fair enough, but the only 
>>> available alternative 'Later' just doesn't seem a good fit.  Can adding 
>>> another milestone be considered, like 'non-image' or 'application'. 
>>> btw, my reasoning for tagging with Pharo3.0 was to do with the idea of 
>>> simultaneous release [1] of related tools with the image.  With the CI now 
>>> operating for a lot of projects, it is not unfeasible that such a 
>>> co-ordinated release occur.  This might be good to encourage participation 
>>> in testing and bug hunting in the final weeks and maybe speed the uptake of 
>>> 3.0.  On the other hand, it might unreasonably stretch resources trying to 
>>> co-ordinate it.
>>> 
>>> [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Simultaneous_Release
>>> 
>>> cheers -ben
>>> 
>> Elsewhere I see a comment by Marcus that "we need to find a way how to use 
>> the bug tracker for projects..." I notice there is already a Projects field 
>> while the Areas field is entirely unused (perhaps this is from following the 
>> guidelines of [2]).  One option might be recategorizing many of the existing 
>> Projects as Areas under one Project='Image'.  Maybe that would require an 
>> unreasonable effort to implement, but I float the idea anyway.  Perhaps the 
>> Fogbugz sysadmins have some tools that could assist.
>> 
> 
> So the idea is that I want to have filter for
> 
> "Need to be reviewed"
> "need to be integrated"
> 
> that are possible to get to empty (that is: that are only related to the 
> image itself).
> 
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/36/Review
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/35/Integration
> 
> e.g.
> 
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/35/Integration
> 
> has two issues that I can't act uppon. So they are not "to be included, 
> because I can not
> include them.
> 
> How do we make a filter that shows me not the other projects?
> 
>       Marcus
> 

I think it should just be fine if we define a different workflow (and thus 
different labels) for external projects...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to