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 Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not 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 re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and 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