On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Danielle Madeley
wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
>> I think for most modules, confirming bugs has usually seemed like a
>> waste of of the maintainer's time. Confirming bugs assumes that the
>> maintainer isn't looking at bugs until
Il giorno ven, 18/09/2009 alle 13.44 +0200, Andre Klapper ha scritto:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 15:26 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
> > So the bottom line is basically this: if you feel this should
> > be the minimum standard of attention that a maintainer must
> > absolutely pay to his
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 10:42 +1000, Danielle Madeley wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> > I think for most modules, confirming bugs has usually seemed like a
> > waste of of the maintainer's time. Confirming bugs assumes that the
> > maintainer isn't looking at bugs
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 14:28 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> I think for most modules, confirming bugs has usually seemed like a
> waste of of the maintainer's time. Confirming bugs assumes that the
> maintainer isn't looking at bugs until they are confirmed. Once the
> maintainer is already looking at
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> We are sorry on *not* having communicated with the rest of GNOME about
> this change, but we believed that all developers subscribed to bugs.
> We would very much like to know which other mailing lists we should add
> on.
The only mailing l
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
[...]
>
> So to summarize, the question boils down to:
> Are you able to take a look at the latest glade3 bug reports once a
> year? If not, glade3 probably has to be excluded from the policy.
I receive bugmail for all bugs and I am quite awar
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
>and avoiding having a database with lots of
> outdated ancient bugs).
Can you elaborate a bit on what the higher level goals of closing the
bugs is? They still remain in the database, no? Is the issue speed
of queries on the product pages?
Hi Tristan,
Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 14:16 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 15:26 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
> >> So the bottom line is basically this: if you feel this should
> >> be the minimum
Tristan,
I believe you could just ask the bugsquad to kindly skip over glade3
bugs if their policy doesn't work for you or causes you more work.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/deskt
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:32 -0500, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:24:23 -0400
> Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> > Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this
> > morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the
> > buglist and throwing them
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 15:26 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
>> So the bottom line is basically this: if you feel this should
>> be the minimum standard of attention that a maintainer must
>> absolutely pay to his buglist, then so b
Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 16:15 +0200 schrieb Pietro Battiston:
> Il giorno ven, 18/09/2009 alle 13.44 +0200, Andre Klapper ha scritto:
> > Yes, I expect maintainers should be able to take a look at the incoming
> > bug reports at least once in 12 months.
> Then, once someone offers to be the gl
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 04:15:19PM +0200, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> Then, once someone offers to be the glade bugs maintainer, I think we
> could ask that he checks every bug once a year.
You're restating what has been suggested.
If a bug is valid, mark it as NEW. It was already proposed that the
Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 15:26 -0400 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom:
> So the bottom line is basically this: if you feel this should
> be the minimum standard of attention that a maintainer must
> absolutely pay to his buglist, then so be it, but I think you are
> being unfair to ask this of me.
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:24:23 -0400
Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Guys,
> Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this
> morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the
> buglist and throwing them into a NEEDINFO state.
>
> Javier pointed me to a blog post[0] whic
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> There are exceptions to this - if an isolated undiagnosed backtrace with
> no further information provided is still sitting there 3 years later,
> it's unlikely to get useful fixed.
Yeah, the root cause of this as I see it is that autogener
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
[...]
> All,
>
> We had a chat a few ago on #bugs, and we agree this was rather too
> inclusive: as Tristan points out, and others commented, a confirmed
> (i.e., status NEW) bug is no longer under the care of the bugsquad.
>
> We have just rev
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 12:27 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Guys,
>Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this
> morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the
> buglist and throwing them into a NEEDINFO state.
>
> Javier pointed me to a blog post[0] which d
Guys,
Im sorry I missed the memo if there was one, I woke up this
morning to a full page of bugmail, deleting valid bugs from the
buglist and throwing them into a NEEDINFO state.
Javier pointed me to a blog post[0] which describes a new policy
to mark bugs as NEEDINFO after one year. I'm raisin
19 matches
Mail list logo
