On Oct 22, 10:40 am, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2007, mabshoff wrote:
Hello,
> > Hello,
>
> > since this has come up repeatedly I would like to clarify: Do not
> > close any tickets in trac unless you have been explicitly told to do
> > so by either malb, was, cwitty or mabshoff. This is to avoid having
> > issues slip through the cracks. Once a ticket is closed and off the
> > top of the time line chances are nobody will ever look at it again
> > unless you stumble across it by accident.
>
> > Just like the "[with patch]" byline we should come up with something
> > to indicate that a ticket should be looked at like "[should be
> > closed]", "[is invalid]" or "[is won'tfix]". In addition you should
> > give a reason why you think the action you requested should be taken
> > (the more precise the better) and retag the ticket against the current
> > target, i.e. 2.8.9 at the moment. If you leave it in 2.9 for now it is
> > unlikely to be found and looked at because there are another 140
> > tickets open against that one.
>
> > William can configure trac so that closing tickets is limited to a
> > few, but so far he has not done so. But as we have to deal with an
> > ever increasing number of tickets we need to follow the process in
> > order to avoid losing issues and also keep the confusion and the work
> > to deal with tickets to a minimum.
>
> I got a clarification for the clarification:
>
> Michael mentioned me (malb) and Carl (cwitty) because William (was) asked us
> to prepare the next release. So for 2.8.9 the three of us are the release
> managers and consequently we are supposed to close tickets.
>
> and a question:
>
> Take ticket 729 as an example
> (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/729): It was closed by Robert
> (rml) because the bugfix/feature request was invalid. Michael (mabshoff)
> reopened it due to the rule state above. But there is nothing for the release
> manager to do and I feel perfectly comfortable with rml closing invalid
> tickets for the Graph subsystem. So I think in those cases it makes perfectly
> sense to just close tickets.
Well, I see it the same way: rml is responsible for the graph
subsystem, so he is the person with the expertise to determine that
the ticket is invalid. But he closed that ticket against 2.9, while it
is customary to close invalid tickets against the "sage-duplicate/
invalid" milestone. The same applies for #731. It is not so much the
marking the ticket invalid, it just ended up against the wrong
milestone.
What caused me to actually raise the issue is #656: That one is
clearly not a duplicate. #968 is an enhancement relative to #656.
During Bug Day 4 William also told rlm not to close tickets until the
issue had been officially resolved.
>
> IMHO this rule could be relaxed if we had the e-mail subsystem working (I know
> it is being worked on). Because in that case, the submitter and the owner of
> a ticket get an e-mail and can complain if it isn't actually fixed.
>
Yep, that has been requested for quite some time. William has enabled
smtp support for trac IIRC, but it doesn't work (yet).
> Martin
>
Cheers,
Michael
> --
> name: Martin Albrecht
> _pgp:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
> _www:http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
> _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
