[adding python-dev back on to the email]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 15:51, Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
>
>>> Pretty much. I've got two views. One is that I'd like to search for
>>> issues that are up for grabs which I could take over, hack on, and generally
>>> not get underfoot of core developmen
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 15:33, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > If we can come up with a simple solution to this problem (perhaps have
> > issues set to under development with no activity shift down a status
> > level after a month) then maybe we will have something everyone can be
>
Brett Cannon wrote:
> If we can come up with a simple solution to this problem (perhaps have
> issues set to under development with no activity shift down a status
> level after a month) then maybe we will have something everyone can be
> happy with.
If an issue is assigned, then somebody has clai
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 22:39, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
wrote:
> I don't mind what approach is taken -- I'm happy to work within the
>>> current infrastructure if someone can suggest a good way. I really just want
>>> to be able to start distinguishing between issues that are essentially new
>>> and
Tennessee Leeuwenburg gmail.com> writes:
>
> Hi all,I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it
would be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked
with a '+'):
I have to point out that the more alternatives there are to choose from, the
more
>
> I don't mind what approach is taken -- I'm happy to work within the
>> current infrastructure if someone can suggest a good way. I really just want
>> to be able to start distinguishing between issues that are essentially new
>> and under debate versus issues that most people agree are a "Good
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 21:00, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg <
>> tleeuwenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker.
Terry Reedy wrote:
> The other problem with too many specifics is non-use. As it is, an issue is
> sometimes closed with no resolution marked, so one has to scroll down,
> possibly a long way, to see whether it was accepted or rejected. (Is it
> possible to require a resolution when closing?)
Y
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
mailto:tleeuwenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it
would be useful to have the following status options (new status
options marked with a
Hi Tennessee,
I plan to take a look at all open issues before PyCon, do you want to
join forces? :)
Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would
> be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked
> with a '+'):
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg <
> tleeuwenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would
>> be useful to have the following status options (new st
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 20:25, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would
> be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked
> with a '+'):
> Open: Means that the issue has been created and not fur
Hi all,
I am beginning reviewing some more issues in the tracker. I think it would
be useful to have the following status options (new status options marked
with a '+'):
Open: Means that the issue has been created and not further reviewed
+ Request Approved: Means that the issue is marked as w
13 matches
Mail list logo
