On Friday 10 December 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> There are a few things we have already started to do that should help
> with the bug tracker issue.
>
> 1. We hare having 4 releases of CMake each year. After each release we
> post to the list and ask people to "vote" for bugs they would like fix
On Friday 10 December 2010, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-12-10 17:01+0100 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Bill Hoffman
wrote:
> >> I have a third idea that we have not yet tried:
> >>
> >> What do people think of automatically closing bugs if they are not
> >> mo
2010/12/10 Bill Hoffman :
> There are a few things we have already started to do that should help with
> the bug tracker issue.
>
> 1. We hare having 4 releases of CMake each year. After each release we
> post to the list and ask people to "vote" for bugs they would like fixed in
> the next relea
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Alan W. Irwin
wrote:
>> On the other hand, on KDE, when we moved to KDE4, we closed almost all
>> KDE3-related bugs without checking if they had been fixed. It did not
>> made too much sense to keep bug reports around unless they were
>> feature requests.
>
> That
On 2010-12-10 17:01+0100 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
I have a third idea that we have not yet tried:
What do people think of automatically closing bugs if they are not modified
for some period of time (say 6 months). They can always be reo
On 12/10/2010 12:48 PM, Thompson, David C wrote:
Mantis lets you customize bug resolution. Maybe a new category of
resolution could be created. Instead of "Won't Fix" it could be
"Lack of Activity"?
It would have to be something that made it clear, that unless someone
cares enough to re-open
Bill
Hoffman [bill.hoff...@kitware.com]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 09:31
To: Pau Garcia i Quiles
Cc: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] CMake bug tracker discussion
On 12/10/2010 11:01 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Bill Hoffman
> wrote:
>> I h
On 12/10/2010 11:01 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
I have a third idea that we have not yet tried:
What do people think of automatically closing bugs if they are not modified
for some period of time (say 6 months). They can always be reope
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> I have a third idea that we have not yet tried:
>
> What do people think of automatically closing bugs if they are not modified
> for some period of time (say 6 months). They can always be reopened if the
> closed. By closing them, it will
There are a few things we have already started to do that should help
with the bug tracker issue.
1. We hare having 4 releases of CMake each year. After each release we
post to the list and ask people to "vote" for bugs they would like fixed
in the next release.
2. We are now sending all n
On 2010-12-09 19:23-0500 David Cole wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
On 2010-12-09 17:06-0500 David Cole wrote:
Hello CMake users and devs,
(And now for something completely different...)
Controversial questions:
- Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely an
...Controversial questions:
- Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely and just do all
discussion and patches on the mailing list? ...
- Or, alternatively, should we eliminate the bulk of mailing list
traffic, and insist on issues in the bug tracker being the main
conversational forum for the
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> On 2010-12-09 17:06-0500 David Cole wrote:
>
>> Hello CMake users and devs,
>>
>> (And now for something completely different...)
>>
>> Controversial questions:
>>
>> - Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely and just do all
>> discussion
On 2010-12-09 17:06-0500 David Cole wrote:
Hello CMake users and devs,
(And now for something completely different...)
Controversial questions:
- Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely and just do all
discussion and patches on the mailing list? (Why have two sources of
information...?)
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:06 PM, David Cole wrote:
> Hello CMake users and devs,
>
> (And now for something completely different...)
>
> Controversial questions:
>
> - Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely and just do all
> discussion and patches on the mailing list? (Why have two sources o
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:06 PM, David Cole wrote:
> Hello CMake users and devs,
>
> (And now for something completely different...)
>
> Controversial questions:
>
> - Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely and just do all
> discussion and patches on the mailing list? (Why have two sources o
> I'll start the ball rolling by saying that, personally, I like the bug
> tracker. I find it much easier to keep a list of issues organized and
> accessible than I can with email filters and folders. But I still see
> a need for both tools.
>
> What do you say?
>
I like the current system. Especi
Bug trackers make people accountable and make it easy for tasks to be
delegated and tracked. BUT, someone has to take on the responsibility of
assigning bugs as the come in and/or closing bugs/feature requests that
aren't going to be developed on any time soon, thus keeping the number of
bugs in th
Hello CMake users and devs,
(And now for something completely different...)
Controversial questions:
- Should we eliminate the bug tracker entirely and just do all
discussion and patches on the mailing list? (Why have two sources of
information...?)
- Or, alternatively, should we eliminate the
19 matches
Mail list logo
