On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:17 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
> To expand on this: the desire for this arises from the observation
> that we have a lot of bugs in the tracker that we don't want to close,
> because they are real bugs or non-crazy enhancement requests, but for
> one reason or another (lack
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:35:03 +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 22.02.2010 21:28, schrieb Florent Xicluna:
> > I did not find any documentation about them in both places:
> > * http://wiki.python.org/moin/TrackerDocs/ "Tracker documentation"
> > * http://www.python.org/dev/workflow/ "Issue workflow
Am 22.02.2010 21:28, schrieb Florent Xicluna:
> R. David Murray bitdance.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I believe Brett mentioned the 'languishing' status for the tracker in
>> passing in his notes from the language summit.
>>
>
> I see a bunch of existing "Status / Resolution" choices.
> "open" / "
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:28:41 +, Florent Xicluna
wrote:
> R. David Murray bitdance.com> writes:
>
> > I believe Brett mentioned the 'languishing' status for the tracker in
> > passing in his notes from the language summit.
>
> I see a bunch of existing "Status / Resolution" choices.
> "
R. David Murray bitdance.com> writes:
>
> I believe Brett mentioned the 'languishing' status for the tracker in
> passing in his notes from the language summit.
>
I see a bunch of existing "Status / Resolution" choices.
"open" / "later"
"open" / "postponed"
"open" / "remind"
I did
R. David Murray wrote:
> I believe Brett mentioned the 'languishing' status for the tracker in
> passing in his notes from the language summit.
Thanks for that. I had assumed Brett meant something along those lines,
but it is good to have the rationale made explicit.
Cheers,
Nick.
P.S. Not tha
