coar98/08/07 02:16:51
Modified:.bugdb-policies.html
Log:
Downsize the typeface inside the tables for better readability and
printability.
Reviewed by: Ralf Engelschall
Revision ChangesPath
1.2 +159 -143 apache-devsite/bugdb-policies.html
Index: bugdb-policies.html
===
RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-devsite/bugdb-policies.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- bugdb-policies.html 1998/08/03 14:48:27 1.1
+++ bugdb-policies.html 1998/08/07 09:16:49 1.2
@@ -4,6 +4,11 @@
Apache Bug Database Policies for Developers
+
+
+
-
-
-
-open
-analyzed
-feedback
-suspended
-closed
-
-
-open
-
-
-
- Either the submitter or a responding developer has determined what the
- problem cause is.
-
-
- A question has been posed to the submitter, such as asking for more
- detail or requesting an experiment.
-
-
- The PR describes a request for a change or functionality that is
- reasonable or interesting, but isn't appropriate to the current
- version under development, or to the current plans or work effort
- available.
-
-
- The PR deals with a non-issue, one that has already been solved, or is
- already being tracked. Or almost any case in which further attention
- is inappropriate.
-
-
-
-analyzed
-
- It turns out that the analysis was incorrect and the cause really isn't
- known after all.
-
-
-
-
- The submitter is being asked for more information or experimentation.
-
-
- The issue described by the PR should be deferred until some later
version.
-
-
- The decision has been made to not address the PR,
- possibly because the behaviour is not considered a bug. This usually
- follows discussion amongst the developers.
-
-
-
-feedback
-
- The requested information has been supplied by the submitter, but
- doesn't really explain the behaviour. (It may be more appropriate to
- move the PR to "analyzed" instead.)
-
-
- The response from the submitter has provided the necessary information
- to determine the cause, if not the solution, of the issue.
-
-
-
-
- Additional information from the submitter allows the determination to
- be made that the issue should be addressed in some future version.
-
-
-
- Additional information supplied by the submitter has explained the
- cause, and the solution is provided in the closure text.
-
- The PR has 'timed out' due to lack of response
- from the submitter.
-
-
-
-
-
-suspended
-
-
- The time has come for the issue described by the PR to be
considered
- for inclusion in the project.
-
- The PR describes a genuine bug rather than a change or enhancement.
- It may be more appropriate to move the PR to "analyzed" instead.
-
-
-
-
-
- The time has come for the issue described by the PR to be
considered
- for inclusion in the project.
-
- The issue described by the PR is a genuine bug or problem, and the
- circumstances are tolerably well understood.
-
-
-
-
- The PR's issue wasn't clearly understood, and it really is a bug
- report. More information from the submitter has been requested.
- (This typically follows out-of-band email
- exchanges between the submitter and a developer.)
-
-
-
-
- The issue was discussed by the developers, and the decision was made
- to not invest in the necessary effort. The PR submitter can, and
perhaps
- should, be encouraged to develop the solution personally and supply it
- to the project for possible inclusion.
-
-
-
-closed
-
- The report was closed prematurely, probably due to insufficient detail
- in the PR or perhaps because the developer didn't understand the
- issue as described. It may be more appropriate for the PR to have
- been moved to "analyzed" or "feedback" instead.
-
-
- The PR was closed prematurely, but the issue is now clarified and
- understood -- though not yet solved.
-
-
- The PR was closed prematurely, but additional information has been
- requested from the submitter to investigate further.
-
-
- After closu
