Hi Raymond, Thanks a lot for the feedback. I actually am more than a bit concerned about the effect of my wholesale edits on the signal to noise ration. Any clarifications are most welcome (and I'm open to change methods and immediate goals) :)
Raymond Hettinger wrote: > ISTM, that when closing duplicate bug reports, both should reference one > another so that the combined threads don't get lost. I agree, sorry for not doing it in issue 1820[1]. I will revise the recently closed bugs to see if I can correct cases where this didn't happen. > Also, assigning bugs to people who haven't asked to handle them doesn't seem > like it is actually cleaning-up anything. That was not the goal at all, so any instance in which it did happen was a mistake. I won't change these unless I was responsible for wrongfully assigning, but I will look back at all my edits to clean up such errors. I've added you as nosy for 2308, the duplicate of 1820, before closing it. Sorry about the inconvenience, as you said "both [issues] should reference one another" is the way to go. > If something is assigned to someone, I usually assume they intend to work on > it at some point. In contrast, unassigned means that no one is currently > handling it. Fair enough, but in most (hopefully all) cases I only assigned bugs to people that requested so, in the "Tracker archeology" thread. Tomorrow I intend to follow up with confirmations/tests/patches for as many of these issues as I can, so in the short term these bugs will receive some attention. > Just thought I would toss this out since the status of so many bugs/patches > is being updated today. I really appreciate that. I'll keep your suggestions in mind and try to improve my edits. Best regards, Daniel [1] http://bugs.python.org/issue1820 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
