5 May
2004
5 May
'04
11:07 a.m.
Hi all
how about closing bugs just as they're fixed in cvs? It will make easier
to overview what is still broken. Users anyway should use search and not
just look at bugs list to reduce duplicates (they often don't do this
anyway).
Priority should mark how severe the bug is.
Comments?
--
Regards
Michal Čihař
http://cihar.com
5 May
5 May
11:31 a.m.
Michal Čihař a écrit:
Hi all
how about closing bugs just as they're fixed in cvs? It will make easier
to overview what is still broken. Users anyway should use search and not
just look at bugs list to reduce duplicates (they often don't do this
anyway).
Priority should mark how severe the bug is.
Comments?
The only goal of letting bugs in prio 1 was to avoid duplicates. But since
we now have a lot of prio 1 bugs on more than one page, we will probably still
get some duplicates anyway.
Maybe we could close them, and put a different message in the bug tracker's page
header.
But which? Telling them to try the latest daily snapshot?
Marc
11:33 a.m.
On 05.05.2004 11:30 -0400, Marc Delisle wrote:
Michal Čihař a écrit:
We got duplicates even when there were just few bugs ... people are
lazy.
Hi all
how about closing bugs just as they're fixed in cvs? It will make easier
to overview what is still broken. Users anyway should use search and not
just look at bugs list to reduce duplicates (they often don't do this
anyway).
Priority should mark how severe the bug is.
Comments?
The only goal of letting bugs in prio 1 was to avoid duplicates. But since
we now have a lot of prio 1 bugs on more than one page, we will probably
still get some duplicates anyway. Maybe we could close them, and put a different message
in the bug tracker's
page header.
But which? Telling them to try the latest daily snapshot?
Telling them to use searching?
--
Regards
Michal Čihař
http://cihar.com
11:36 a.m.
Michal Čihař a écrit:
On 05.05.2004 11:30 -0400, Marc Delisle wrote:
or both :) But I think that the only solution is to release often :)
Of course, this is less easy before a .0 version.
Marc
Michal Čihař a écrit:
We got duplicates even when there were just few bugs ... people are
lazy.
Hi all
how about closing bugs just as they're fixed in cvs? It will make easier
to overview what is still broken. Users anyway should use search and not
just look at bugs list to reduce duplicates (they often don't do this
anyway).
Priority should mark how severe the bug is.
Comments?
The only goal of letting bugs in prio 1 was to avoid duplicates. But since
we now have a lot of prio 1 bugs on more than one page, we will probably
still get some duplicates anyway. Maybe we could close them, and put a different
message in the bug tracker's
page header.
But which? Telling them to try the latest daily snapshot?
Telling them to use searching? 
6:27 p.m.
Hi Michal & list,
Michal Cihar wrote:
how about closing bugs just as they're fixed in cvs? It will
make easier to overview what is still broken. Users anyway
should use search and not just look at bugs list to reduce
duplicates (they often don't do this anyway).
I like the way we handle fixed bugs. Users rather search the list of open
bugs than searching the tracker, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, it is easier for me to detect dublicate reports is I see the
complete list of bugs for the current release version.
People who like to know about the bugs of our current release - maybe
because they administer a web server and want to keep it secure - can do so
by just looking through open bug reports.
And if you just want to see the unfixed bugs - just sort the tracker by
priority.
Priority should mark how severe the bug is.
Yes, and a fixed bug is not severe anymore, imho...
Regards,
--
Alexander M. Turek
<rabus(a)users.sourceforge.net>
_ __ __ _ _ _
_ __ | |__ _ __ | \/ |_ _ / \ __| |_ __ ___ (_)_ __
| '_ \| '_ \| '_ \| |\/| | | | | / _ \ / _` | '_ ` _ \| | '_ \
| |_) | | | | |_) | | | | |_| |/ ___ \ (_| | | | | | | | | | |
| .__/|_| |_| .__/|_| |_|\__, /_/ \_\__,_|_| |_| |_|_|_| |_|
|_| |_| |___/
<http://www.phpmyadmin.net>
7439
days inactive
7439
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexander M. Turek -
Marc Delisle -
Michal Čihař