| 1 |
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:07 +1300, Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Basically the aim I have for this is too draw the attention of you |
| 4 |
> dev's to bugs that are a 'quick' fix. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Therefore meeting the aim of closing bugs without you guys having to |
| 7 |
> do most of the investigation... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Sounds good to me :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I have also though of going thru bugs.gentoo.org and reassigning the |
| 12 |
> priority of bugs into categories |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I don't think anyone would really object to that, other than maybe some |
| 15 |
bug spam. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I also believe that there should be some bugs marked as WONTFIX, |
| 18 |
> CANTFIX. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, those are great. Would be nice if there was a YOUFIX :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> For example jboss https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148383 and |
| 23 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66965 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I believe, and it will be interesting in hereing your views on this, |
| 26 |
> that bugs should only be open if they are actually going to be worked |
| 27 |
> on. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Well since they are stuff that's in tree, in theory they should remain |
| 30 |
open. Till there is an alternative in tree, or fix. Otherwise closing |
| 31 |
might just cause someone else to file a new bug instead of finding the |
| 32 |
pre-existing closed one. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> With jboss we now have a binary ebuild in the overlay that could |
| 35 |
> replace the existing versions and these jboss bugs could be closed. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Adding binary to tree, ew. Bugs closed, good. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 41 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives