Torsten Knodt wrote:
CH> > 20297 [PATCH] Added RequestURI in addition to SitemapURI to BaseLi
CH> > -> no opinion: Christian?
CH> won't fix -- module is deprecated and duplicates functionality of the
CH> RequestInputModule
Sure? BaseLink returnes something like ../../ to have a link back to the bas
CH> > 20297 [PATCH] Added RequestURI in addition to SitemapURI to BaseLi
CH> > -> no opinion: Christian?
CH> won't fix -- module is deprecated and duplicates functionality of the
CH> RequestInputModule
Sure? BaseLink returnes something like ../../ to have a link back to the base.
Where is this sto
Now - only about 20 hours later - only 26 entries with patches are left and
the total number of open issues is 103.
That is not bad considering the fact that a few new bugs were filed at the
same time.
Andreas
- Original Message -
From: "Andreas Kuckartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL
At 05:33 AM 6/3/2003, you wrote:
On 3/06/2003 8:57 Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
My point is, sending every three days an email to the list, saying
"there are too many open patches/bugs" doesn't really help or motivate.
Exactly. When I read these mails, I always end up with this vision of
people trying
On 03.Jun.2003 -- 11:33 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
> 12173 [PATCH] SQLTransformer Query object prematurely closes conne
>
> -> no opinion - someone should check
> 15005 [PATCH] Extension to sendmail.xsp: lists for sendmail:cc
>
> -> comments by Christian -> no reply
Forgot to close this bug -- hav
On Tuesday 03 June 2003 11:33, Steven Noels wrote:
SN> 20185 [PATCH] TidySerializer
SN> -> ongoing discussion: I'm -0 as well due to implementation choices
SN> (don't expect others to come & clean up your work)
Don't know if you really ment me for the last part. But to be sure:
I don't think TidyS
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Steven Noels dijo:
If people need food for discussion, here's my utterly uninformed and
out-of-the-head opinion on these patches:
13070 [PATCH] Add a new tag to XSP
-> ditto by Vadim & Christian -> no reply
I think the ball is not in my side. :)
Christian committ
Steven Noels dijo:
> If people need food for discussion, here's my utterly uninformed and
> out-of-the-head opinion on these patches:
>
> 13070 [PATCH] Add a new tag to XSP
>
> -> ditto by Vadim & Christian -> no reply
I think the ball is not in my side. :)
Christian committed this patch, but Va
On 3/06/2003 11:10 Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
I'm not against such a guideline and it might help in this case. So +1.
But even with such a guideline, you can't force committers to do the
work listed in the guideline.
Correct, but it helps to guide them :-)
The best way to provide guidance is by le
On 3/06/2003 8:57 Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
My point is, sending every three days an email to the list, saying
"there are too many open patches/bugs" doesn't really help or motivate.
Exactly. When I read these mails, I always end up with this vision of
people trying to 'corporatize' open source pro
> I'm not against such a guideline and it might help in this case. So +1.
>
> But even with such a guideline, you can't force committers to do the
> work listed in the guideline.
Correct, but it helps to guide them :-)
I will try to find a suitable text which can be adapted.
Andreas
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>
> > But what about a bug handling guideline?
> > Is there something similar for the Apache community in general?
>
> This is what I think is needed - and can be a result of this thread.
>
I'm not against such a guideline and it might help in this case. So +1.
But even
> We have at the moment 4 blockers:
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_severity=Blocker&product=Cocoon+2&order=Bug+Number
>
> 1. Vadim, 2002-09-21: "Blocking 2.1 release"
> 2. Berin, 2002-07-11 (bug reporter)
> 3. 2002-11-07, u
I think this is plain simple - as long as noone of the committers has
time for it and has fun in doing so, nothing will happen. This is
open source development and this means, things are not done because
someone "forces" you to do them. Work is done because someone has fun
in doing so.
I don't want
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> > Le Mardi, 3 juin 2003, à 08:06 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> >> ...I think this is plain simple - as long as noone of the committers
> >> has time for it and has fun in doing so, nothing will happen
> Hi:
>
> but we also must think in users that use h
> Le Mardi, 3 juin 2003, à 08:06 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
>> ...I think this is plain simple - as long as noone of the committers
>> has time for it and has fun in doing so, nothing will happen
Hi:
but we also must think in users that use his time to fill a bugzilla
report. Th
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> Le Mardi, 3 juin 2003, à 08:06 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> > ...I think this is plain simple - as long as noone of the committers
> > has
> > time for it and has fun in doing so, nothing will happen
>
> Yes, but I think Joerg has a point too: more
Le Mardi, 3 juin 2003, à 08:06 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
...I think this is plain simple - as long as noone of the committers
has
time for it and has fun in doing so, nothing will happen
Yes, but I think Joerg has a point too: more comments on bugzilla
could help people under
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>
> But it's obvious we have a more or less bad bug handling. Most of the
> bugs are not even ASSIGNED, so nobody can really see if it's only a bug
> report of a user or a confirmed bug. Why don't we accept or reject a bug
> within a month at the latest.
> And the patches?
I fail to see how ownership by a person would help in applying patches
more consistently. Having a 'sponsoring committer' might help to get
patches applied. Then again, I think you are looking at the symptom, not
the cause. The fact no sponsoring committers exist for certain
patches might tell
> The fact no sponsoring committers exist for certain
> patches might tell more about the patch than the willingness of the
> committers.
That certainly is true for some of the patches. In my opinion it does make
makes sense if committers enter a comment if they visit a patch and decide
not to use
On 2/06/2003 20:46 Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Here is a list of the 31 unresolved bugs for which patches have been
created. Only one bug is "owned" by a person. The others are owned by the
developers list.
I fail to see how ownership by a person would help in applying patches
more consistently. Havi
22 matches
Mail list logo
