On 04/18/2014 07:31 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:53:53 -0400, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:21:41 -0400, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 4/15/2014 9:45 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 04/15/2014 05:55 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:21:41 -0400, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 4/15/2014 9:45 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 04/15/2014 05:55 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
[...] I've changed the text associated with the 'invalid' resolution
to read 'not a bug' [...]
Nice.
Any chance of
In a discussion at the sprints today Nick observed that 'invalid' was a
resolution that carried a rather negative subtext (your bug report was
invalid, ie: you made a mistake) , and that Red Hat used 'not a bug',
which we all agreed was much more descriptive of the actual resolution.
So, I've
On 04/15/2014 05:55 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
[...] I've changed the text associated with the 'invalid' resolution
to read 'not a bug' [...]
Nice.
Any chance of changing the 'committed/rejected' text to something else? :)
--
~Ethan~
___
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Any chance of changing the 'committed/rejected' text to something else? :)
Good that you brought this up. It always feels confusing to me.
My suggestion is: Let's have committed for stuff that is committed
Not committed
On 4/15/2014 8:55 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
In a discussion at the sprints today Nick observed that 'invalid' was a
resolution that carried a rather negative subtext (your bug report was
invalid, ie: you made a mistake) , and that Red Hat used 'not a bug',
which we all agreed was much more
On 4/15/2014 9:45 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 04/15/2014 05:55 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
[...] I've changed the text associated with the 'invalid' resolution
to read 'not a bug' [...]
Nice.
Any chance of changing the 'committed/rejected' text to something else? :)
Like 'finished'?
