On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:24:44 +0100, Joel Madero
wrote:
For now I'm not doing this just because there are so many other things
to do and as of now I'm not seeing a clear message as to what we're
doingI've seen at least 3-4 proposals with different links and the
like. I suggest this be reso
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> + would be nice to have some blog-posts / picture posts (Bjoern)
I just finished mine.
http://kohei.us/2014/11/03/seattle-librefest/
Kohei
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail ad
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:38 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > * Seattle Hackfest (Robinson/Norbert)
> ...
> > + badly need ways to stop 'building' consuming the hack-fest (Michael)
> > + or a way to keep hand-holding after the hack
Hi Cor,
>> Robert Großkopf wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
>>> Sometimes I reported bugs and the bugs where set to "New" directly by
>>> the system, not by me. Don't know why the system decided the bug is
>>> confirmed and new ...
>>
>> I think that depends on how you start.
>> When you start from https:
On 11/04/2014 08:13 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 17:06:
>> On 11/04/2014 07:58 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
>>> Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
@ Cor - if you'd like you can take a look yourself and move them to NEW
>>> Thanks for explaining Joel.
>>> By how did they end
Cor Nouws wrote on 04-11-14 17:18:
> Robert Großkopf wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
>> Sometimes I reported bugs and the bugs where set to "New" directly by
>> the system, not by me. Don't know why the system decided the bug is
>> confirmed and new ...
>
> I think that depends on how you start.
> When y
Robert Großkopf wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
> Sometimes I reported bugs and the bugs where set to "New" directly by
> the system, not by me. Don't know why the system decided the bug is
> confirmed and new ...
I think that depends on how you start.
When you start from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/que
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Kohei Yoshida
wrote:
>
> And also, my comment was never meant as a criticism of "someone not
> doing the job". It was rather a simple piece of feedback that I hoped
> would be useful for future hackfest planning.
>
> So, let's not take this as a "failure" please.
Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 17:06:
>
> On 11/04/2014 07:58 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
>>> @ Cor - if you'd like you can take a look yourself and move them to NEW
>> Thanks for explaining Joel.
>> By how did they end in the wrong REOPENED state in the first place
On 11/04/2014 07:58 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
>> @ Cor - if you'd like you can take a look yourself and move them to NEW
> Thanks for explaining Joel.
> By how did they end in the wrong REOPENED state in the first place?
I have been looking at the history to see i
Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 16:34:
> @ Cor - if you'd like you can take a look yourself and move them to NEW
Thanks for explaining Joel.
By how did they end in the wrong REOPENED state in the first place?
And if someone looks at the bugs, can that person pls look at details
and history him/hers
Hey Robert,
> Hi Joel,
>
>> Furthermore, some
>> of those bugs were "self confirmed" which we recommend against. That
>> being said, if a bug is confirmed and I set it to UNCONFIRMED just set
>> it to NEW and move onthere were 350+ bugs incorrectly set...you'll
>> see more moving to UNCONFIRME
Hi Joel,
> Furthermore, some
> of those bugs were "self confirmed" which we recommend against. That
> being said, if a bug is confirmed and I set it to UNCONFIRMED just set
> it to NEW and move onthere were 350+ bugs incorrectly set...you'll
> see more moving to UNCONFIRMED if they were set in
@ Cor - if you'd like you can take a look yourself and move them to NEW
if you believe they should be there, here are the bugs in REOPENED
status that you are a commenter on:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=REOPENED&email1=cno%40nouenoff.nl&emaillongdesc1=1&emailtype1=substring
For now I'm not doing this just because there are so many other things
to do and as of now I'm not seeing a clear message as to what we're
doingI've seen at least 3-4 proposals with different links and the
like. I suggest this be resolved on QA call, finalized, maybe a wiki
written as to what t
Yes because they were set to REOPENED incorrectly. REOPENED has a
specific definition and they were incorrectly there. Furthermore, some
of those bugs were "self confirmed" which we recommend against. That
being said, if a bug is confirmed and I set it to UNCONFIRMED just set
it to NEW and move on.
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> * Seattle Hackfest (Robinson/Norbert)
...
> + badly need ways to stop 'building' consuming the hack-fest (Michael)
> + or a way to keep hand-holding after the hack-fest (Bjoern)
...
> + vast majority of people wanted acc
Hi Joel,
Joel Madero wrote on 04-11-14 04:47:
> So I just booted about 50 bugs over to UNCONFIRMED so that list has
> jumped. I'm going through the rest of the list of about 280 more bugs -
Sorry that I'm not fully aware of what's going on here, but I'm rather
annoyed by the fact that bugs that
18 matches
Mail list logo
