Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:43:59PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> A response time of a week is a sign that the mechanism is not working >> out. > > We *don't* have a response time of a week. Currently the only > person who has shown the slightest bit of interest doing this job > does it an average of once every two weeks. So the mechanism is not working out. >> Things like weeding out duplicates can happen at a >> slower time span. It is also possible to put a bug into a >> database with a state "pending", "unverified" or similar. That >> gives a better impression than a black hole. > > I do not agree with making the issue tracker open to everybody. > We'll get tons of uninformed users posting non-bugs. So the idea of the current setup is actually to keep the number of users posting bug reports down? Why? If you feel you should be able to ignore bug reports by uninformed users, tell your issue tracker view to omit showing "unverified" issues. Sure, if everybody does that, the unverified issues will start piling up, but at some point of time somebody who _does_ see the reports _might_ engage in a burst of activity sorting them. The current workflow favors just letting issues get lost on the mailing list. >> The results are not encouraging to contributors. > > Maybe you didn't notice the above note. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO > OFFER TO HELP WITH THE WORK. Anybody would be in a better situation to help with the work if it were visible as "unverified" in the bug tracker, and if it was not reduced to the personal responsibility of a single person to do something. It is easier to get people to do a bit of work when they are in the mood rather than get somebody who volunteers to be _responsible_ until further notice. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond