On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:20:52 -0400, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> I will not go into details here beyond referring to
> http://bugs.python.org/issue8154, but if you follow the link, you'll
> see that there was not a consensus on how the issue should be
> addressed and even whether or not it was a
I am generally happy with the tracker workflow and in my experience,
issues that are lingering are lingering for a good reason.
I've decided to add my two cents to this thread because I've just had
a negative experience with how issue 8154 and my input to it were
handled.
I will not go into detai
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:39:58 -0400, "A.M. Kuchling" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:22:05AM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
> > > Real world example with issue8151. It is an issue with a trivial patch
> > > in it. Everything what is needed is to dispatch it to stable `commit
> > > queue` and por
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:09:28 -0400, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On 3/19/2010 10:22 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> >> This can be done by anyone just by saying, eg: 'see issue 1234' (roundup
> >> turns that into a link),
> >
> > That should be 'see i
On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/19/2010 10:22 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
>> This can be done by anyone just by saying, eg: 'see issue 1234' (roundup
>> turns that into a link),
>
> That should be 'see issue #1234' to get the autolink.
> From http://wiki.python.org/moin/
On 3/19/2010 10:22 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
This can be done by anyone just by saying, eg: 'see issue 1234' (roundup
turns that into a link),
That should be 'see issue #1234' to get the autolink.
From http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDocs/
The tracker converts some specially formatted wor
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:22:05AM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
> > Real world example with issue8151. It is an issue with a trivial patch
> > in it. Everything what is needed is to dispatch it to stable `commit
> > queue` and port to trunk. It is not 'easy' - it is 'trivial', but I
> > have no me
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:09:16 +0200, anatoly techtonik
wrote:
> I want to push some of my patches before 2.7 and use 5-1 rule for
> that, but I can't come up with any review workflow other than mailing
> status of my comments to the issues here. I can't mark issues in any
> way. How about giving u
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 03:09, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> I want to push some of my patches before 2.7 and use 5-1 rule for
> that, but I can't come up with any review workflow other than mailing
> status of my comments to the issues here. I can't mark issues in any
> way. How about giving users a
I want to push some of my patches before 2.7 and use 5-1 rule for
that, but I can't come up with any review workflow other than mailing
status of my comments to the issues here. I can't mark issues in any
way. How about giving users ability to set flags or keywords? Maybe
entering a separate field
10 matches
Mail list logo
