On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:23:39 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> > It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag
> > could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered
> > this
> > issue, too", and once 2, 3, or 4 of th
On 17 June 2016 at 06:05, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> How about "ON HOLD: Need Info" instead?
"STALLED" is better for me than "ON HOLD".
But I can't really see much value in such a breakdown unless we can
find at *least* 2 sub-categories of "STALLED"
--
Kent
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/auth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I would like to keep CONFIRMED as I use it and find it useful.
I also think that renaming UNCONFIRMED to OPEN is silly and
misleading, since any non-RESOLVED bug is indeed an open bug. I don't
have anything against renaming it to NEW, although I thi
* Kent Fredric schrieb am 16.06.16 um 16:05 Uhr:
> On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> > because
> > sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example,
> > tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and
> > independently confirmed
>
>
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:23:06 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > > >
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał G
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> > Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >
> > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-m
On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > > > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
> > >
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
> >
> > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people wh
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:37:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
>
> Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't
> handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others
On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
> > since I'm already subscribed to the list.
>
> Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't
> handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others and i
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
>> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
>>> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to k
On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
>> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it.
>
> Are you saying that bugs that haven't been marked
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:27:07 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> > Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > >
> > > > H
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag
> could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered this
> issue, too", and once 2, 3, or 4 of those are logged, Bugzilla automatically
> changes the state to CONFIRME
On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> because
> sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example,
> tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and
> independently confirmed
Isn't that why "RESOLVED: Need Info" exists?
Or is "CONFIRME
On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>>
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe
On 06/16/2016 09:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>>
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I belie
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> >
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > However, we use t
On 06/16/2016 02:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote:
>> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-).
>
>
> +1. I was going to suggest the same.
>
Bug is still open even if it is IN_PROGRESS or not in stable. But I
currently make use of the UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>
> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> replace the two with
On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote:
> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-).
+1. I was going to suggest the same.
--
Kent
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
On 16-06-2016 14:51:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200
> Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
> > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have separate UNC
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200
Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> >
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > However, we use the two
On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
>
> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> replace the two with a si
Hello, everyone.
Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
replace the two with a single NEW state.
Rationale:
1. Most of developers don't care ab
27 matches
Mail list logo
