On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:03:00PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:07:15PM +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
And third, some teams use statuses in odd ways. For example, a while ago
the Ubuntu Mozilla team were using In Progress when they really meant
Won't Fix
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:07:15PM +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
And third, some teams use statuses in odd ways. For example, a while ago
the Ubuntu Mozilla team were using In Progress when they really meant
Won't Fix (I don't know whether they still do this). And as we've seen
from
On Sep 28, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:07:15PM +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
And third, some teams use statuses in odd ways. For example, a while
ago the Ubuntu Mozilla team were using In Progress when they really
meant Won't Fix (I don't know
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I agree entirely. What drives *me* batty in turn is when people take a
confirmed, complete report, ask why it hasn't been fixed yet, and close
it as invalid because obviously something that's been around for a
couple of releases
And all the duplicates have closed - duplicates naturally don't have any
further progress.
I don't think 60 days is long enough either, but that's a different
point.
Caroline
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 10:38 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Saturday 22 September 2007 05:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I agree entirely. What drives *me* batty in turn is when people take a
confirmed, complete report, ask why it hasn't been fixed yet, and close
it as invalid because
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 10:38:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
I agree entirely. What drives *me* batty in turn is when people take a
confirmed, complete report, ask why it hasn't been fixed yet, and close
it as invalid
Am 20.09.2007 um 12:57 schrieb Aaron Whitehouse:
Do we really gain anything by having a dev look at Ubuntu doesn't
work every day for the rest of all time?
If the dev has to look at the unchanged bug each day, there's
something wrong with filtering/sorting tools.
My underlying point is
What is the rationale behind skipping closed bugs in a search? I've
been burned by this in the past.
I can understand why the QA guys or the even developers would want
this but for a user, who is actually making the effort to not only
report a bug but to search for dups first, why would they
Sarah Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As one of those who triages various KDE bugs...in the area of KDEBase,
in particular, there are around 450 open bugs, we *have* to close
invalid bugs. There are around 750, with the INVALID and WONTFIX bugs
included.
Please correct me, but I suspect
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sarah Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As one of those who triages various KDE bugs...in the area of KDEBase,
in particular, there are around 450 open bugs, we *have* to close
invalid bugs. There are around 750, with the INVALID and WONTFIX bugs
included.
On 18/09/2007, Henrik Nilsen Omma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sarah Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As one of those who triages various KDE bugs...in the area of KDEBase,
in particular, there are around 450 open bugs, we *have* to close
invalid bugs. There are
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:13:44 +0200, Markus Hitter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Am 17.09.2007 um 17:44 schrieb Sarah Hobbs:
There is simply no way to deal with the current lot of open bugs,
to get
an overview of them all, let alone having the invalid ones in there -
the problem gets too
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:11:49AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Sarah Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As one of those who triages various KDE bugs...in the area of KDEBase,
in particular, there are around 450 open bugs, we *have* to close
invalid bugs. There are around 750, with the
On 12/09/2007, Onno Benschop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. While Dapper isn't the bleeding edge of Ubuntu, code that exists
in Dapper exists in Feisty and Gutsy today. That implies that bugs
that exist in Dapper are also likely to exist. Disk space is
cheap. A computer is
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:27:49 +0100, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 12/09/2007, Onno Benschop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. While Dapper isn't the bleeding edge of Ubuntu, code that exists
in Dapper exists in Feisty and Gutsy today. That implies that bugs
that exist in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As one of those who triages various KDE bugs...in the area of KDEBase,
in particular, there are around 450 open bugs, we *have* to close
invalid bugs. There are around 750, with the INVALID and WONTFIX bugs
included.
There is simply no way to deal
On 9/13/07, Brian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Matthew Paul Thomas mentioned in a different e-mail it is important
to make efficient use of the QA team. While having a lot of bugs in the
Incomplete state would be one way of dealing with bugs with
insufficient information, it would
Alexandre Strube wrote:
I want to raise something here...
One of the things that made me take some distance from daily ubuntu
development was a raid of newer people which closes the bugs for
whatever reason. If the bug is not good enough for them, they close.
This is more or less an
On 12/09/07 04:39, Alexandre Strube wrote:
I want to raise something here...
One of the things that made me take some distance from daily ubuntu
development was a raid of newer people which closes the bugs for
whatever reason. If the bug is not good enough for them, they close.
This is more
On Sep 12, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Onno Benschop wrote:
...
2. While Dapper isn't the bleeding edge of Ubuntu, code that exists
in Dapper exists in Feisty and Gutsy today. That implies that
bugs that exist in Dapper are also likely to exist. Disk space is
cheap. A computer is
21 matches
Mail list logo
