| 1 |
On 02/03/10 13:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>>>> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> To make naming a bit more consistent, how about: |
| 6 |
>> - BUGDAY-CANDIDATE |
| 7 |
>> - BUGDAY-ACCEPTED |
| 8 |
>> - BUGDAY-REFUSED |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> They're a bit long but I think it's worth to not have them crippled |
| 12 |
>> down to stuff like "BDYES", "BDNO" and "BDMAYBE". |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> This looks like overkill to me. One keyword should be enough, and for |
| 15 |
> supplementary information "Status Whiteboard" could be used. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Ulrich |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
I agree. Simply having the BUGDAY keyword should be sufficient, and |
| 21 |
more information can be provided elsewhere in the report. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
--Zach |
Archives