On 4/18/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:46:24PM +0100, sebb wrote: > > Might I suggest you create a Bugzilla patch and then attach the files to it? > > On 13/04/06, Andrew Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I have just tried entering this in bugzilla but the post_bug.cgi was > > > 404ing! > > > > > I tried this again this morning and bugzilla is working fine. > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39334
About 5 days ago would be when it was being moved from one machine to the other. For the last year or so the machine the bug trackers were running on was under heavy load - often not for their own fault. Google hitting the mailing list archives has the hard drives pretty spun out :) So I imagine this migration and/or instability before hand is what you hit - sorry about that. Should be better now that it's on a new box and only issue tracking probelms can hurt it. Course, there are about 6 issue trackers on there now, 3 jira, 2 bugzilla and 1 scarab :). I know you're not getting much noise back on the CLI issues, but it's definitely appreciated. One style you'll notice in Commons is that many developers hop from project to project, choosing a project based on the number of issues that have built up. Lang's my current target, and if I knew which direction to take CLI, it'd be next. What do you think? Is the cli2 package clearly superior to the cli[1] package? Should we dump the old one, test the issues reported against cli[1] that are now fixed in cli2 and move on; or should we dump the cli2 package and stick with the cli one? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
