On 14 January 2018 at 23:19, Paolo Cavallini <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Il 14/01/2018 12:11, Richard Duivenvoorde ha scritto: >> On 14-01-18 00:17, Tim Sutton wrote: > >>> Actually this is not true (correct me if I am wrong PSC): the PSC was >>> against two things: >>> >>> 1) losing all history in issue manager. I think this is reasonable since >>> there is a lot of very useful history in the issue tracker and it was >>> felt that a 'clean slate start ‘ would be a disservice to all those who >>> have raised issues in the past. >>> 2) calling for a migration without a fully tested, fully fleshed out >>> plan to manage the migration from start to finish. This means someone >>> taking responsibility for the *whole* process which so far hasn’t been >>> forthcoming. >> >> That is exactly what it was in my memory too. > > I can confirm. I Still believe loosing all our history of open and > closed issues would be a serious damage to the project.
I agree. I'd find this a very very sore loss. Personally, I'm referring to historic issues almost on a daily basis, both for checking what closed issues actually were and also checking for open issues before working on an area of code. Nyall _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
