Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB

2015-10-26 Thread James 


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 Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not 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 re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and 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

2015-10-26 Thread Trevor Daniels 
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Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not 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re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and it 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

Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB

2015-10-26 Thread Federico Bruni 
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

2015-10-26 Thread Trevor Daniels 

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

2015-10-26 Thread Werner LEMBERG 
 
> 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