Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB
James wrote Monday, October 26, 2015 11:54 AM > On 26/10/15 11:29, Trevor Daniels wrote: >> Devs, Bug Squad: >> >> Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not >> seeing any change for several years. Following the move of the Issues DB >> from GC to SF many of the original owners of these Started Issues have not >> re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and >> it seems inconsistent for these issues to have a status of Started when they >> have no Owner. I'd like to tidy up this situation by reverting these issues >> to Status:Accepted so they become more obviously available for someone else >> to select for further work by appearing in the Open (Accepted) list. >> >> To this end I've already reassigned those not seeing any action for over 3 >> years. Unless I hear objections I'll continue reassigning more recently >> moribund issues until the Open (Begun) and Open (Patch) lists reflect more >> closely the issues actually under active consideration. >> >> Comments? > > I think you should also be setting the 'owner' if it has any to 'blank' > (if that wasn't already implied) for issues that are 'Started' and have > an 'owner' but have had no activity for a similar amount of time. I shall, although the Owner field is almost always blank anyway for these moribund issues. During the migration it was filled in only for those Devs who were already registered at SF. > I think this may overlap the 'patch-abandoned' discussion - which i > still need to go back a review as part of my Patch Meister duties. I don't think what I said conflicts with anything we discussed then - I'm just getting on with doing it. Usually I shall leave the patch status unchanged, unless on inspection I think it looks wrong, in which case I shall add a comment explaining any change I make. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB
Il giorno lun 26 ott 2015 alle 13:07, Werner LEMBERG ha scritto: Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, [...] Any progress on moving to Savannah? Is there a TODO list somewhere? No progress, as far as I know. Nobody is willing to work on maintaining an Allura deployment. Josiah was the only one who seemed to have the skills and the will to do it, but he vanished. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB
> Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, [...] Any progress on moving to Savannah? Is there a TODO list somewhere? Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB
On 26/10/15 11:29, Trevor Daniels wrote: > Devs, Bug Squad: > > Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not > seeing any change for several years. Following the move of the Issues DB > from GC to SF many of the original owners of these Started Issues have not > re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and > it seems inconsistent for these issues to have a status of Started when they > have no Owner. I'd like to tidy up this situation by reverting these issues > to Status:Accepted so they become more obviously available for someone else > to select for further work by appearing in the Open (Accepted) list. > > To this end I've already reassigned those not seeing any action for over 3 > years. Unless I hear objections I'll continue reassigning more recently > moribund issues until the Open (Begun) and Open (Patch) lists reflect more > closely the issues actually under active consideration. > > Comments? I think you should also be setting the 'owner' if it has any to 'blank' (if that wasn't already implied) for issues that are 'Started' and have an 'owner' but have had no activity for a similar amount of time. I think this may overlap the 'patch-abandoned' discussion - which i still need to go back a review as part of my Patch Meister duties. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Tidying-up the Issues DB
Devs, Bug Squad: Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not seeing any change for several years. Following the move of the Issues DB from GC to SF many of the original owners of these Started Issues have not re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and it seems inconsistent for these issues to have a status of Started when they have no Owner. I'd like to tidy up this situation by reverting these issues to Status:Accepted so they become more obviously available for someone else to select for further work by appearing in the Open (Accepted) list. To this end I've already reassigned those not seeing any action for over 3 years. Unless I hear objections I'll continue reassigning more recently moribund issues until the Open (Begun) and Open (Patch) lists reflect more closely the issues actually under active consideration. Comments? Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel