We discussed the possible technical solutions but didn't get attention
if we see the need to do that. As none of the core reviewers or subteam
leaders reacted to the proposal, I conclude that this is not an issue
where we need to put our limited resources at.
This post is just informational to
On 2016-07-13 13:35:18 +0200 (+0200), Markus Zoeller wrote:
[...]
> it cannot be used in "gerrty" though, or can it?
[...]
It's probably one or two more lines of code to also print the Gerrit
query such that it could be pasted into Gertty ^O (or make use of
`gertty --open` to trigger opening that
On 2016-07-13 09:56:37 +0200 (+0200), Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
[...]
> Gerrit comments are lost when the patch get merged, we may want to
> provide some stats from these tags in future that's why I think commit
> message is better.
It's not true at all that Gerrit comments are lost when
On 13.07.2016 09:56, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 06:45:03PM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote:
>> On 12.07.2016 17:39, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:59:12AM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote:
After closing the old (>18months) bug reports
On 2016-07-13 13:35, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> On 12.07.2016 20:31, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2016-07-12 10:46:54 -0700 (-0700), Augustina Ragwitz wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I like #3 but I worry about the comments getting spammy if things are
>>> dropped from and added to the list repeatedly. Would
On 12.07.2016 20:31, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-07-12 10:46:54 -0700 (-0700), Augustina Ragwitz wrote:
> [...]
>> I like #3 but I worry about the comments getting spammy if things are
>> dropped from and added to the list repeatedly. Would tagging the bugs in
>> Launchpad work? We can easily
On 13.07.2016 10:09, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 2016-07-12 09:59, Markus Zoeller wrote:
>> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
>> days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
>> majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually takes
On 12-07-16 09:59:12, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
> days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
> majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually takes to get a fix
> merged [3], this is the result:
On 2016-07-12 09:59, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
> days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
> majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually takes to get a fix
> merged [3], this is the result:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 06:45:03PM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> On 12.07.2016 17:39, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:59:12AM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> >> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
> >> days ago [1], it became
On 12.07.2016 19:46, Augustina Ragwitz wrote:
> I like the idea of having a list because it makes it easy for people to
> see what's up for review. Anything that allows people to easily point
> and click will increase visibility and participation. I also prefer the
> list maintenance be as
On 2016-07-12 10:46:54 -0700 (-0700), Augustina Ragwitz wrote:
[...]
> I like #3 but I worry about the comments getting spammy if things are
> dropped from and added to the list repeatedly. Would tagging the bugs in
> Launchpad work? We can easily remove tags in Launchpad, it's a
> query-able
I like the idea of having a list because it makes it easy for people to
see what's up for review. Anything that allows people to easily point
and click will increase visibility and participation. I also prefer the
list maintenance be as automagic as possible so the burden doesn't fall
on one or
On 12.07.2016 18:19, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 07/12/2016 01:59 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
>> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
>> days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
>> majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually
On 12.07.2016 17:39, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:59:12AM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote:
>> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
>> days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
>> majority [2]. After asking
On 07/12/2016 01:59 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually takes to get a fix
merged [3], this is the result:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:59:12AM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
> days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
> majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually takes to get a fix
> merged [3],
After closing the old (>18months) bug reports nobody is working on a few
days ago [1], it became clear that the "in progress" reports are the
majority [2]. After asking Gerrit how long it usually takes to get a fix
merged [3], this is the result:
number of merged bug fixes within the last 365
18 matches
Mail list logo
