Hi,
Gary Wilson schrieb:
> SmileyChris wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2:29 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
>>> Very interesting - it looks like that action is being hidden from
>>> non-authenticated users... I'll investigate.
>> How's th
SmileyChris wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2:29 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
> > Very interesting - it looks like that action is being hidden from
> > non-authenticated users... I'll investigate.
>
> How's the investigation going? I'm
On Jan 19, 2:29 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
> Very interesting - it looks like that action is being hidden from
> non-authenticated users... I'll investigate.
How's the investigation going? I'm apprehensive of closing ticket
On Jan 19, 11:24 am, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO, it shouldn't go into stage "Needs Decision" before the
information arrives.
I'm not a fan of instantly closing tickets while waiting for
information but I see the point Jacob/Micheal is expressing.
It would be great to have
On 1/18/07 4:24 PM, Michael Radziej wrote:
The basic idea is (and this is *my* interpretation), we have enough
tickets. We probably have more tickets than we can process, even with
triaging. There's no use in keeping tickets when the reporter has lost
the interest in helping with it. (Of course
Hi all,
Gary Wilson wrote:
I would say a ticket should be closed as invalid only if there wasn't
enough information in the ticket subject + description to understand
what the problem is.
Do you disagree about the "invalid" vs. "wontfix", or about closing?
If it's the latter ... first, forge
Michael Radziej wrote:
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Michael, I see that ticket was closed as invalid because it needed to
> pass tests.
>
> If I understand the triage process correctly, it should have been
> marked accepted, but with has_patch=1 and patch_needs_improvement=1.
Yeah, your're basically r
Hi Jeremy
Jeremy Dunck wrote:
On 1/18/07, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
somehow the reopen button went on vacation with the trac udate--can
anyone call it back? It would be very appreciated by ticket #3320 ;-)
(At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
Michael, I s
On 1/18/07 8:08 AM, Ramiro Morales wrote:
It's me or the "type" field (defect, enhancement, ...) of a ticket is
also missing?.
We got rid of that field, along with a couple of other fields we don't really
use. In this specific case, besides not using it, the line between "defect"
and "enhan
On 1/18/07, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
somehow the reopen button went on vacation with the trac udate--can
anyone call it back? It would be very appreciated by ticket #3320 ;-)
(At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
Michael, I see that ticket was closed as inva
On 1/18/07, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/18/07 7:17 AM, Michael Radziej wrote:
> somehow the reopen button went on vacation with the trac udate--can
> anyone call it back? It would be very appreciated by ticket #3320 ;-)
>
> (At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
On 1/18/07 7:17 AM, Michael Radziej wrote:
somehow the reopen button went on vacation with the trac udate--can
anyone call it back? It would be very appreciated by ticket #3320 ;-)
(At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
Very interesting - it looks like that action is being hidden fr
Hi,
somehow the reopen button went on vacation with the trac udate--can
anyone call it back? It would be very appreciated by ticket #3320 ;-)
(At least, I cannot reopen from closed/invalid)
Cheers!
Michael
--
noris network AG - Deutschherrnstraße 15-19 - D-90429 Nürnberg -
Tel +49-911-935
13 matches
Mail list logo
