On 03/14/10 13:05, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin:
So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
exact
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin :
>
>> So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
>> the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
>> exactly what I'd expect - you cont
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin :
>
>> So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
>> the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
>> exactly what I'd expect - you cont
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin :
> So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
> the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
> exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer.
No, this is related to the bug, because
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:38:36 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin :
> Not at all. It is statistics. For a long time before the bug
> wranglers, I personally had to deal with 75% of the Project Manager
> requests from flyspray. These were all reopen requests, and many of
> them arguing with the actual choic
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Isaac Dupree
wrote:
> On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
>> commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
>> developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's
On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote:
More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what
a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to di
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
>> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
>> commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
>> developers
>
> assuming malicious users up-front?
Not at all. It is statistics. For a long time before
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
>> Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
>
> Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project.
> Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs
Well damn, looks like I was looking too high up.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Dan McGee wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project.
Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs
More-over, I think it is a bad
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:
>> Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
>
> Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project.
> Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs
>
>> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people w
> Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project.
Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs
> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
> commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
>
On Fri 12 Mar 2010 14:11 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Fri 12 Mar 2010 13:28 -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> >> > But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why
>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Fri 12 Mar 2010 13:28 -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> > But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why
>> > a bug is reported even if it's invalid.
>>
>> Seriously, p
On Fri 12 Mar 2010 13:28 -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> > But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why
> > a bug is reported even if it's invalid.
>
> Seriously, present some examples here, this talking in the abstract is
On Fri 12 Mar 2010 09:34 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
>
> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
> commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
> developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be close
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>
> But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why
> a bug is reported even if it's invalid.
Seriously, present some examples here, this talking in the abstract is
stupid. We're all grown ups, no one is going to have the
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:34:01 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin :
> Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
Commenting on closed bugs isn't necessary. This is a matter of taste.
Some bug trackers allow this, some not.
> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
> com
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray.
I didn't know it, thanks for the info! So I guess every argument
from now on is just for the sake of completion...
More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
commenting o
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:58:12 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin :
>
>> This sounds like throwing technology at a problem that basically boils
>> down to a communication issue.
>>
>> Without specific examples, this isn't going to go anywhere, really.
Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:58:12 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin :
> This sounds like throwing technology at a problem that basically boils
> down to a communication issue.
>
> Without specific examples, this isn't going to go anywhere, really.
>
> Would someone mind linking to the bugs in question?
I
2010/3/11 Ng Oon-Ee :
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:49 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
>> schrieb Aaron Griffin :
>>
>> > Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
>> > developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
>> > is the r
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:49 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin :
>
> > Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
> > developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
> > is the right action. If you have info
On 12/03/10 07:57, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:59 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 16:57, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:
> You should consider moving to bugzilla.
-1. I've used bugzilla, and the interface is absolutely horrible.
Flyspray is much much better.
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:59 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> > My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
> > be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
> > reopen the bug, and e
Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:19:46 +0200 (GTB Standard Time)
schrieb Dimitrios Apostolou :
> My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow
> comments to be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by
> doing a request to reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment
> is not
Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin :
> Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
> developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
> is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
> the wiki, as THAT is the source o
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
> be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
> reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment is not added to the
> comment list
My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment is not added to the
comment list.
Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early" si
30 matches
Mail list logo
