Hi guys.
There are still issues that affect versions up to 5.3.6 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2025).
Maybe we can bulk close all the issues prior tapestry
5.3 version (Notifying users to upgrade to a newer version and check if the
issue still exists) and have a manual one by one
Robert Z. has volunteered to prune the list manually. I think we should see
where that gets us.
Let's not forget that every bug report represents a significant investment
of time by a Tapestry user who earnestly wants to make the framework
better, and we definitely want to encourage that. A few
Ok, so we keep piling them up because we don't want to hurt people's feelings?
Don't you think that
people deserve to be told the truth: Guys, we are sorry, but this stuff is
old, we most likely
won't look at it ever because we have a lot of other tasks with higher
priorities, but if you feel
Uli, my only objection is to bulk closing the issues.
On Dec 18, 2012 6:52 AM, Ulrich Stärk u...@spielviel.de wrote:
Ok, so we keep piling them up because we don't want to hurt people's
feelings? Don't you think that
people deserve to be told the truth: Guys, we are sorry, but this stuff
is
This is not directly related, but: I would love to help by submitting
patches (at least for my bug report:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1941), but it's really hard to
get tapestry running from source in eclipse (and i work with eclipse and
java based projects every day).
I will open
And my objection is to wasting resources on going through every issue and in
the end still closing
most of them.
If Robert wants to spend the time on it, I'm all for it. But I really want to
see the list of open
issues significantly reduced in the near future and I believe that the mose
time
Uli, let's not make this a religious argument. If we all compromise a bit
we'll see that everyone wants the same thing, a smaller open bug count. Can
we just wait a bit for bulk closing anything, and in the meanwhile keep
sending a message that the time to take a look at the open issues is right
Agreed. I think that if after owner notification and about a month waiting
period, the issue can be closed.
On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
Uli, let's not make this a religious argument. If we all compromise a bit
we'll see that everyone wants
On 18.12.2012 18:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
Uli, let's not make this a religious argument. If we all compromise a bit
I'm not making this a religious argument. I simply don't see why we should
delay cleaning the list
any longer or put any of our valuable energy in outdated stuff. That's simply
We should define some tags that can be used to mark issues that are either
likely to be picked up, or likely to be closed.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Ulrich Stärk u...@spielviel.de wrote:
On 18.12.2012 18:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
Uli, let's not make this a religious argument. If we
That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I don't want us to manually go through
the list because I
fear that we'll tend to be rather inclusive and won't let go of the old stuff.
If someone wants to pick up an issue, they can just assign it to themselves and
the issue
automatically disappears
Reading [1] a while back made me think of the status of our own bug database.
According to [2] we have 114 open, unassigned bugs in our tracker for Tapestry
5.1 and 5.0 and even
172 when I include those where no version number has been specified. Those bugs
are unlikely to get
resolved, many of
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Ulrich Stärk u...@spielviel.de wrote:
I am inclined to bulk close these with a message that the reporter is free
to check if the issue
still persists with a more recent version of the framework.
Thoughts?
I do agree, totally. Plus thanks for taking care.
+1
I think we can get away with this approach ; so much it no longer relevant
in 5.4.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Massimo Lusetti mluse...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Ulrich Stärk u...@spielviel.de wrote:
I am inclined to bulk close these with a message that the
I'd be more cautious. Some of the open issues contain good ideas that
simply lack an interested committer. I agree that most should be closed,
but a blind bulk action seems unwise.
On Dec 17, 2012 1:20 PM, Howard Lewis Ship hls...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
I think we can get away with this approach
Well, we need some plan to tame the list. It's so cluttered that its hard
to find important things to work on. There's lots of duplicates, and lots
of things that I think can be closed as lacking sufficient detail to
proceed.
This is also one of those areas that can be addressed by someone who
I think I can find some time over the course of this week to go through the
list of tickets.
Robert
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12/178:31 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
Well, we need some plan to tame the list. It's so cluttered that its hard
to find important things to work on. There's lots of
Folks, there is no sense in hording issues that we know will never be addressed
and that do nothing
else but clutter our issue tracker and block our view on the really useful
ones. Please overcome the
gatherer in you. Even the best idea won't help us if there is nobody interested
in
18 matches
Mail list logo
