I have spent some time inspecting the (provisionally) migrated tickets, and
it all looks very good. One small thing struck me: the cross-referencing
to other tickets works fine (ticket/issue numbers preceded by "#" are links
to the other ticket/issue), but one cannot tell without following the lin
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
One small thing struck me: the cross-referencing to other tickets works
fine (ticket/issue numbers preceded by "#" are links to the other
ticket/issue), but one cannot tell without following the link whether the
other ti
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is fine to have many different labels for issues, as we have
many components. But why was it thought necessary to have all the
component labels start with "component:"? That seems redundant. It does
mean tha
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible for us to try out creating a new (dummy) issue on the mock
GitHub site, to try out the interface? Obviously any issues created there
now will be lost at the next iteration.
Dima would be able to create an
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
one cannot tell without following the link whether the other ticket is
closed. This is important for other tickets which are dependencies.
For the case of dependencies, there is a discussion in
https://github.com/sagema
Thanks Matthias for the detailed replies. I, and I'm sure all other sage
developers, are extremely grateful for the work you and the others have
done for this migration.
John
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, 19:23 Matthias Koeppe,
wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.c
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 11:08:15 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is fine to have many different labels for issues, as we have
many components. But why was it thought necessary to have all the
component
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:21:10 PM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 11:08:15 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:10:24 AM UTC-8 john.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is fine to have many different labels for issues, as we have
many
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 4:08:15 AM UTC+9 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
Tobias' initial proposal was to use the single letter "c: " as the prefix
for components. I thought it would be too cryptic, so I went with the whole
word "component: ". But I'd be happy to change it if "c: " (or some oth
