On Wed, Feb 14, at 12:45 Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
Sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, and perhaps it's just me, but I don't
like this lump everything in one ticket idea (using the BLFS-6.2.0
Text Changes ticket as an example). I find it difficult (if not
impossible) to figure out:
1. What
On 2/14/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would expect (at least in the future), from a bug-tracking technology
is some kind of sub-tickets/threads.
They are called meta bugs in mozilla's bugzilla. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61691 for an example of
a
On Wed, Feb 14, at 09:42 Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 2/14/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would expect (at least in the future), from a bug-tracking technology
is some kind of sub-tickets/threads.
They are called meta bugs in mozilla's bugzilla. See
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 19:07, Ag. Hatzimanikas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, at 09:42 Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 2/14/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would expect (at least in the future), from a bug-tracking
technology is some kind of sub-tickets/threads.
They
On Wed, Feb 14, at 07:08 Matthew Burgess wrote:
There's an open ticket for Trac regarding ticket dependencies and the like.
I
haven't looked into how much they've managed to implement yet or timescales
for filling in the missing pieces but you can see it for yourself at
Hi all,
Sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, and perhaps it's just me, but I don't
like this lump everything in one ticket idea (using the BLFS-6.2.0
Text Changes ticket as an example). I find it difficult (if not
impossible) to figure out:
1. What has been taken care of?
2. What is still under
On 2/13/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer if we go back to the tried-and-true method of opening a
ticket when there's an issue, and closing it when it is fixed. Perhaps
I'm just old-fashioned.
Yeah, I guess it didn't go the way I'd envisioned. I'm working my way
through
