On 18.09.2008, at 11:58, Norbert Hartl wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 10:27 +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
Hi,
There are reports in the pharo tracker that are not solvable because
the software the bug
is reported about is not part of pharo.
I wonder if that makes sense... from the bug-fixing of Squeak, I have
found that it's very
important to keep the numner of open issues as small as possible.
(the
nearly 1000 open reports
they gatheres when doing 3.10 in Squeak is completely unmanagable,
for
example).
I would suggest to put these reports on a wiki page, instead of the
bugstracker. Or report them
to the developers of the package.
I put all of those tickets into the tracker.
No, these are great! The problem are more reports about OB, AST, RB
and things
like that...
As pharo started it did
it from 3.9 and not from 3.10. We agreed that we should have a look at
all changes made in 3.10 to include the important ones. So it was the
right choice to put all into the pharo tracker.
You are right that it is much more clever to have a look at a problem
_before_ opening a ticket. But this way you lose an automatic way to
keep track of the things "already dealt with". That's the same reason
I included the mantis ticket number in the subject of the pharo
tickets.
This way you can easily and fast find the ticket number in the pharo
tracker. Knowing that an issue from mantis has been dealt with in
pharo
has its value, too.
We have to build a convention how to do it.
--
Marcus Denker -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~denker
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
