Le 19 oct. 05, à 05:20, Antonio Gallardo a écrit :
...Closing the open bugs is like deleting this knowledge database.
Bugzilla is showing how we cares about the user reports. IMHO, the
list should be a TODO list for the community...
Note that issues don't necessarily have to stay closed, we
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 15 oct. 05, à 19:00, Antonio Gallardo a écrit :
...If users got the time to report the bugs, I think at least we owe
them a real bug review. Just request more info if needed.
WDYT?
I think that issues are piling up in bugzilla and we obviously don't
have
Le 15 oct. 05, à 19:00, Antonio Gallardo a écrit :
...If users got the time to report the bugs, I think at least we owe
them a real bug review. Just request more info if needed.
WDYT?
I think that issues are piling up in bugzilla and we obviously don't
have the manpower to take care of
On 15.10.2005 18:50, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
If a bug was marked as NEEDINFO and the user does not provided more
info in 2-3 months, then mark the bug as expired and close the bug. I
think there are already some candidates to be expired.
I also like this policy more than the automatic way.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 15.10.2005 18:50, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
If a bug was marked as NEEDINFO and the user does not provided more
info in 2-3 months, then mark the bug as expired and close the bug. I
think there are already some candidates to be expired.
I also like this policy more
Torsten Curdt wrote:
On 10.10.2005, at 21:18, Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 20:32, Geert Josten a écrit :
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
Good idea. Hasn't this been done before with some of the bugs?...
some, yes, but not on a large
Ralph Goers wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 16:07, hepabolu a écrit :
...while looking at Bugzilla I noticed some open bugs entered as far
back as 2002. Could someone have a look and do _something_ about it?
It's not a good sign that bugs are open thatlong...
I
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacretaz at apache.org writes:
I don't think we'll ever get there, my last count says we have 303 open
bugzilla issues, and my perception is that we have little collective
energy to analyze and prioritize them, we've been chasing this for
hepabolu wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 12 oct. 05, à 13:06, Torsten Curdt a écrit :
Instead of waiting for this *not* to happen
(and we know it's not going to happen) I'd say -
let's ask the people whether those old bugs still
apply...
I like the idea - how do you suggest asking?
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 12 oct. 05, à 17:05, Joerg Heinicke a écrit :
...Don't we have the votes feature of bugzilla for prioritizing the
issues?...
We might, but an active and traceable action from the bug reporters/CC
people is more useful I think.
No. The votes does not work
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
hepabolu wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 12 oct. 05, à 13:06, Torsten Curdt a écrit :
Instead of waiting for this *not* to happen
(and we know it's not going to happen) I'd say -
let's ask the people whether those old bugs still
apply...
I like the idea -
Le 11 oct. 05, à 10:25, hepabolu a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
As already said by others, I too am not fond of a bug amnesty
...I know this means a lot of work, and takes certainly a lot more
effort than simply expire, but it really
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 11 oct. 05, à 10:25, hepabolu a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
As already said by others, I too am not fond of a bug amnesty
...I know this means a lot of work, and takes certainly a lot more
effort than
Doing an amnesty would *not* mean that we don't care about the
bugs, quite the contrary: we care enough about them to setup a
quick an efficient process to find out which ones really need our
attention.
Think so too!
But if you think we have enough collective energy and manpower to
Le 12 oct. 05, à 13:06, Torsten Curdt a écrit :
Instead of waiting for this *not* to happen
(and we know it's not going to happen) I'd say -
let's ask the people whether those old bugs still
apply...
I like the idea - how do you suggest asking?
We could add a comment to each open issue with
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 12 oct. 05, à 13:06, Torsten Curdt a écrit :
Instead of waiting for this *not* to happen
(and we know it's not going to happen) I'd say -
let's ask the people whether those old bugs still
apply...
I like the idea - how do you suggest asking?
We could add a
Instead of waiting for this *not* to happen
(and we know it's not going to happen) I'd say -
let's ask the people whether those old bugs still
apply...
I like the idea - how do you suggest asking?
We could add a comment to each open issue with the question (which
would send a mail to bug
Le 12 oct. 05, à 14:08, hepabolu a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 12 oct. 05, à 13:06, Torsten Curdt a écrit :
Instead of waiting for this *not* to happen
(and we know it's not going to happen) I'd say -
let's ask the people whether those old bugs still
apply...
I like the idea - how
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Yes, do a query like http://tinyurl.com/9nxs2 and select change several
bugs at once. Then we can enter a comment (which people will get by
mail) and change the issue state.
Caveats:
-For some reason the mark as NEEDINFO option does not appear in this
case, so we
Le 12 oct. 05, à 15:34, hepabolu a écrit :
...Fine by me, but in the wiki page you say something along the lines
if you don't respond, the state stays WONTFIX, which in effect means
you have to mark all bugs for WONTFIX...
Yes, using the change several bugs at once means we have to set all
Le 12 oct. 05, à 15:39, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
Le 12 oct. 05, à 15:34, hepabolu a écrit :
...Fine by me, but in the wiki page you say something along the lines
if you don't respond, the state stays WONTFIX, which in effect
means you have to mark all bugs for WONTFIX...
Yes, using
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
So here's the suggested plan:
1) Set all open issues (except those filed since September 1st) to LATER
and add to each issue the comment shown under Bugzilla comment to send
on http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/BugzillaIssuesCleanup
2) People who want to confirm
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Steps 1) and 4) can be done en masse via the change several bugs at
once function of bugzilla.
En masse. That is exactly the approach I was trying to avoid. :-(
What is the primary goal - do you want simply to get rid of issues or you want
to make Cocoon better? I
Le 12 oct. 05, à 16:53, Vadim Gritsenko a écrit :
What is the primary goal - do you want simply to get rid of issues or
you want to make Cocoon better?...
My goal is to prioritize the issues, find out among these 300 those who
are worth working on. Without having to spend lonely hours on
On 12.10.2005 17:03, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
My goal is to prioritize the issues, find out among these 300 those who
are worth working on.
Don't we have the votes feature of bugzilla for prioritizing the issues?
Jörg
PS:
I can send emails the standard way again (POP3, GMX). GMX got
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 12 oct. 05, à 16:53, Vadim Gritsenko a écrit :
We could also, after three weeks, reopen the issues to which people
haven't responded, and set them to a low priority or use another flag to
identify them, instead of letting them in LATER state as suggested.
I can
Le 12 oct. 05, à 17:05, Joerg Heinicke a écrit :
...Don't we have the votes feature of bugzilla for prioritizing the
issues?...
We might, but an active and traceable action from the bug reporters/CC
people is more useful I think.
-Bertrand
We joked about this at the GT (it isn't really funny though) that we
need a status of no one cares.
hepabolu wrote:
Guys,
while looking at Bugzilla I noticed some open bugs entered as far back
as 2002. Could someone have a look and do _something_ about it? It's
not a good sign that bugs
It is not a bad thing to prioritize the bugs and perhaps leave out the least
critical of the old bugs..
G.
Ralph Goers wrote:
We joked about this at the GT (it isn't really funny though) that we
need a status of no one cares.
hepabolu wrote:
Guys,
while looking at Bugzilla I noticed
Le 10 oct. 05, à 16:07, hepabolu a écrit :
...while looking at Bugzilla I noticed some open bugs entered as far
back as 2002. Could someone have a look and do _something_ about it?
It's not a good sign that bugs are open thatlong...
I don't think we'll ever get there, my last count says we
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
Good idea. Hasn't this been done before with some of the bugs?
G.
Le 10 oct. 05, à 20:32, Geert Josten a écrit :
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
Good idea. Hasn't this been done before with some of the bugs?...
some, yes, but not on a large scale, which I think we need now.
-Bertrand
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 21:01 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 20:32, Geert Josten a écrit :
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
Good idea. Hasn't this been done before with some of the bugs?...
some, yes, but not on a large scale, which I think we need now.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 20:32, Geert Josten a écrit :
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
Good idea. Hasn't this been done before with some of the bugs?...
some, yes, but not on a large scale, which I think we need now.
mozilla did this recently, too. they had
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 16:07, hepabolu a écrit :
...while looking at Bugzilla I noticed some open bugs entered as far
back as 2002. Could someone have a look and do _something_ about it?
It's not a good sign that bugs are open thatlong...
I don't think we'll ever get
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 16:07, hepabolu a écrit :
...while looking at Bugzilla I noticed some open bugs entered as far
back as 2002. Could someone have a look and do _something_ about it?
It's not a good sign that bugs are open thatlong...
I don't think we'll ever
Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacretaz at apache.org writes:
I don't think we'll ever get there, my last count says we have 303 open
bugzilla issues, and my perception is that we have little collective
energy to analyze and prioritize them, we've been chasing this for
months now without
Vadim Gritsenko vadim at reverycodes.com writes:
286, or 252 without roadmap.
Including new state NEEDINFO? That one missing was the reason my counter did not
match the one in the regular (weekly?) mails sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joerg
From: Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:36:28 -0400
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...
* 22732: Cocoon Servlet can't be included
Either we provide a way to include output of Cocoon, or update
documentation to state that such usage is not supported at all.
Since you
On 10.10.2005, at 21:18, Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 10 oct. 05, à 20:32, Geert Josten a écrit :
How about doing a bug amnesty as follows?
Good idea. Hasn't this been done before with some of the bugs?...
some, yes, but not on a large scale, which I think we
40 matches
Mail list logo
