| 1 |
Am 15.01.2014 17:20, schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:29:19 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Am 15.01.2014 04:11, schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I send the first mail with this wording 8 days ago. Enough time to |
| 9 |
>> comment on it. I'd prefer to discuss it on the list. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes, but not all comments were discussed yet, therefore (dis)agreement |
| 12 |
> on them is missing; and this last thing rather became a topic of |
| 13 |
> discussion due to the work clashes that we saw happen twice. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
I'd say the clashes occurred because nobody mentioned at all what they |
| 16 |
are working on. Since people started using IN_PROGRESS to mean "I'm |
| 17 |
working on it", this shouldn't happen again. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Yes, I see some commit messages not refer to bugs which is something we |
| 20 |
> will want to avoid; think this might need to go into the commit policy. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
There's nothing wrong with fixing/implementing something that nobody |
| 23 |
filed a bug about. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> The "way it was" is to not care about them at all. There was no |
| 27 |
>> agreement on the the other thread if these things should be used or |
| 28 |
>> not. So I left it vague so everyone could use it, but they are not |
| 29 |
>> forced to. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Hmm, could this result in conflicting usage of these? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Maybe, but I'd first see if the usage patterns converge to something |
| 34 |
that makes everyone happy. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>>>> +There are a number of bugs named "[TRACKER] *" that collect bugs |
| 37 |
>>>> +for specific topics. Confirmed bugs should be marked as blocking |
| 38 |
>>>> +these tracker bugs if appropriate. |
| 39 |
>>> |
| 40 |
>>> For clarity, it should be mentioned that this does not mean to block |
| 41 |
>>> the tracker for the next version; this could be misinterpreted. |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> Considering that the tracker gets renamed, I'm not sure what you mean |
| 44 |
>> here. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> As you are confused yourself by misinterpreting what you have written, |
| 47 |
> you demonstrate the case for the need of clarity here; this is not |
| 48 |
> about the next version tracker or it being renamed at all, it's about |
| 49 |
> all other trackers that are not version trackers. The part of the |
| 50 |
> policy quoted here doesn't make that clear, it had me puzzling for a |
| 51 |
> moment too when I first read that; I think you were puzzled too now... |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Sorry, I failed to properly read what you quoted. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I think once you know that these other trackers exist, it's clear. If |
| 57 |
you want something added there, that's fine with me too. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Sebastian |
Archives