On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:34 +0200, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > On Sep 18, 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. 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. > > yes, I think this made a lot of sense for the issues fixed in 3.10. We > dealt with a couple of them already and now we can decide which ones > we want to fix and which ones to ignore. > Norbert, did you create issues for each change that went into 3.10? > Yes! I worked through the update stream to find every single update. After that I tried to assign them to the right set of mantis reports. For every update number in squeak I opened a ticket and included the information about the mantis tickets as well.
I started to change every subject line to include the mantis bug number(s). But this far I have only added this to one third of the tickets. But I'll do the rest in the near future. Norbert > > 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. > > I think for the Mantis issues other than the ones that went into 3.10 > we should only create issues in our bugtracker if we explicitly want > to integrate a fix. I.e., we should not automatically create issues > for all issues created in Mantis (would be too much work anyway). Like > this we can keep the number of open reports low as Marcus suggests. > > Adrian > > > > > > > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
