Yes in an ideal world. Now either we can script the bugreport to generate that list automatically or we will not have the resources to do it.
Then I do not imagine somebody patient enough to read a log full of bug descriptions. :) But may be I'm just too lazy. Stef On Dec 22, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Stan Shepherd wrote: > > > Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >> >> >> The process we have in mind is that if the bug is **really** important >> then it will be fixed in 1.1 and 1.0. >> We did that in the past for Squeak 3.9. >> Now normal improvements changes.... will not be retro-ported because we >> simply cannot. >> And you are right to report a bug it is important in the future that >> people check if the bug is already fixed >> in the current unstable else we will not be able to make process and we >> will spend our time testing. >> >> > It sounds like the periodic 1.0 releases need to include a known problems > file, which would include all bugs fixed in 1.1 alpha but not planned to be > retrofitted. > And it's probably important to make clear that, if in doubt, we should log a > bug and risk it being a duplicate. Because the people with a genius for > finding bugs are new users, and they may not be able to tell whether or not > it's the same bug. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/Re-did-you-check-in-1-1-how-the-old-browser-now-support-the-creation-of-new-method-cat-tp4194364p4202687.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
