Hi On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:53:00AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:08:10AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > I have this sneaking suspicion that we need a tool more appropriate than > > the BTS to handle the WNPP. The BTS seems rather fragile for this > > purpose - the format for bug titles and to a greater extent the way > > followups for bug reports are handled (not going to the bug sumbitter) > > both seem rather fragile and aren't really handled all that well by the > > mechanisms normally used when interacting with the BTS. > > Yes. Using the BTS for this purpose is ridiculously complicated, far > from intuitive, and prone to breakage. If only someone were to write > something better. :)
One solution is to have four separate wnpp packages so you can reassign them instead of retitle it. It is at least a bit more intuitive and a bit less error prone. If should be fairly easy to convert from wnpp to o, ita, rfp and rfa. Regards, // Ola > -- > Mike Stone > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING | | +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
