That was me, which explains how I got on the 'leaderboard' for the first time ever... :-D
Someone then came round and changed all the REMINDs to 'something-other-than-remind', saying effectively that we don't use REMIND; bugs should either be left open or resolved INVALID/WORKSFORME/WONTFIX. Is this right? I can see the logic of that in one sense, but in another it makes sense to me to have a way of marking bugs as "this isn't fixed and is valid, but has been stale for years, no one gives a damn and it's unlikely to ever get any movement". Thoughts? Is the REMIND resolution useful? --HM "K. Peachey" <p858sn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4c103ee70907270130i76f16368u808fcdfe08384...@mail.gmail.com... > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Andrew Dunbar<hippytr...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 2009/7/27 Nikola Smolenski <smole...@eunet.yu>: >>> repor...@isidore.wikimedia.org wrote: >>>> MediaWiki Bugzilla Report for July 20, 2009 - July 27, 2009 >>>> >>>> Bugs NEW : 165 >>>> Bugs RESOLVED : 174 >>> >>> I think this is the first time for quite a while that more bugs have >>> been resolved than created. Congratulations to everyone responsible! :) >> >> Could it be due to the new "known to fail" logic? >> >> Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail) >> > Someone (I forget who) when though and marked all the old bugs that > are possibly fixed or fixed as either FIXED or REMIND. that is what > most likely caused it. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
