Re: 1.3 bugs
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Jim Jagielski wrote:
It's easy to be "brave" when being heartless :)
Lots of WONTFIX :)
Actually, it's more heartless to just leave the bugs without feedback.
It gives people the impression that the developers simply don't care,
and they will most likely never submit a bug report again.
This is especially true if the reporter had come up with a fix and
produced a patch...
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Death is nature's way of telling you to slow down...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: 1.3 bugs
On 8/2/07, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for 2.x bugs, there are quite a few which are going to be > harder to deal with. Perhaps we want a new "Archived" status, > for PRs which have merit but which aren't going to get 'fixed'. > Particularly those with PatchAvailable. I would just use "Later". Joshua.
Re: 1.3 bugs
It's easy to be "brave" when being heartless :) Lots of WONTFIX :) Tony Stevenson wrote: > > Impressive feat, takes a brave man to take on that many bugs! > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > I went through and cleared out maybe 200 or so bugzilla bugs > > for 1.3... Will start on the 2.x ones tomorrow and try to > > clear out most of the crud there... We have some real old ones :) > -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Re: 1.3 bugs
Nick Kew wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:30:25 -0400 > Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I went through and cleared out maybe 200 or so bugzilla bugs > > for 1.3... Will start on the 2.x ones tomorrow and try to > > clear out most of the crud there... We have some real old ones :) > > Nice going! > > As for 2.x bugs, there are quite a few which are going to be > harder to deal with. Perhaps we want a new "Archived" status, > for PRs which have merit but which aren't going to get 'fixed'. > Particularly those with PatchAvailable. > Or maybe FutureFix ? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Re: 1.3 bugs
Impressive feat, takes a brave man to take on that many bugs! Jim Jagielski wrote: I went through and cleared out maybe 200 or so bugzilla bugs for 1.3... Will start on the 2.x ones tomorrow and try to clear out most of the crud there... We have some real old ones :)
Re: 1.3 bugs
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:30:25 -0400 Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I went through and cleared out maybe 200 or so bugzilla bugs > for 1.3... Will start on the 2.x ones tomorrow and try to > clear out most of the crud there... We have some real old ones :) Nice going! As for 2.x bugs, there are quite a few which are going to be harder to deal with. Perhaps we want a new "Archived" status, for PRs which have merit but which aren't going to get 'fixed'. Particularly those with PatchAvailable. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
1.3 bugs
I went through and cleared out maybe 200 or so bugzilla bugs for 1.3... Will start on the 2.x ones tomorrow and try to clear out most of the crud there... We have some real old ones :)
Re: PATCH: build failure from ./Makefile due to no ability to add CFLAGS to buildmark compile
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 01:18:08PM -0400, David Jones wrote: > zOS needs to compile with extra CFLAGS in order to link correctly. > After revisions 153273/153266 to ./Makefile.in there is no ability to add > any flags as buildmark.c is made without them directly using compile, i.e: > > PROGRAM_PRELINK = $(COMPILE) $(top_srcdir)/server/buildmark.c COMPILE does already include ALL_CFLAGS etc, though. Is this really just a failure to link the non-libtool-built object? joe
