intrigeri:
> Hi,
>
> intrigeri:
>> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce
>> a "Needs Validation" status.
>
> This proposal from March 24 was implemented on June 2.
>
> Any feedback about how this change impacted your work so far?
100% optimization, 0% loss of val
intrigeri:
> intrigeri:
>> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce
>> a "Needs Validation" status.
>
> This proposal from March 24 was implemented on June 2.
>
> Any feedback about how this change impacted your work so far?
Very fine change!
--
sajolida
Tails — ht
Hi,
intrigeri:
> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce
> a "Needs Validation" status.
This proposal from March 24 was implemented on June 2.
Any feedback about how this change impacted your work so far?
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
__
intrigeri:
> intrigeri:
>> I'll wait (at least) one more week and if there's no strong objection,
>> I'll implement this proposal.
> I'm doing this today. Expect tons of notifications from Redmine.
Done!
Context:
https://lists.autistici.org/message/20190324.103611.7aa3cabe.en.html
Corresponding
intrigeri:
> I'll wait (at least) one more week and if there's no strong objection,
> I'll implement this proposal.
I'm doing this today. Expect tons of notifications from Redmine.
___
Tails-dev mailing list
Tails-dev@boum.org
https://www.autistici.org/m
Hi,
intrigeri:
> anonym:
>> intrigeri:
>>> Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the
>>> majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided
>>> cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign
>>> the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if
Hi,
I'll wait (at least) one more week and if there's no strong objection,
I'll implement this proposal.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
___
Tails-dev mailing list
Tails-dev@boum.org
https://www.autistici.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev
To unsubscribe from this li
Hi,
anonym:
> intrigeri:
>> Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the
>> majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided
>> cheaply and quickly, I think we should use mentions and not reassign
>> the ticket. And when I'm mentioned, if I realize that pro
sajolida:
> intrigeri:
>> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce
>> a "Needs Validation" status.
> Good idea! Works for me.
:)
> What would happen to tickets that go back-and-forth between the main
> author and the reviewer? Would they stay in "Needs Validation" or
intrigeri:
> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce
> a "Needs Validation" status.
Good idea! Works for me.
What would happen to tickets that go back-and-forth between the main
author and the reviewer? Would they stay in "Needs Validation" or go
back-and-forth betwe
intrigeri:
> So I propose that we drop the "QA Check" field and instead, introduce
> a "Needs Validation" status.
Sounds much simpler, awesome! +1
> Given we now have "mentions" (@nickname) on our Redmine, for the
> majority of cases, when the requested info can presumably be provided
> cheaply a
Hello,
On 25.03.19 10:10, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sun 2019-03-24 11:36:11 +0100, intrigeri wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I'll be happy to implement this proposal.
>
> I'm not a regular contributor, so you should weight my opinion very
> lightly, but this all sounds quite to me.
>
> The more
On Sun 2019-03-24 11:36:11 +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> Thoughts?
>
> I'll be happy to implement this proposal.
I'm not a regular contributor, so you should weight my opinion very
lightly, but this all sounds quite to me.
The more i see technical systems in actual use, the more i think that
simpler
Hi,
With the upcoming migration to GitLab in mind, while reading some
books, using a kanban board locally, and with the idea to make the
contribution process smoother for both newcomers & long-timers, I've
thought quite a bit about how we use tickets to organize our
work recently.
My main conclus
14 matches
Mail list logo
