cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Bug report for Cocoon 2 [2003/05/18]
Date Mon, 19 May 2003 17:28:12 GMT


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 18/05/2003 23.49:
> on 5/18/03 2:13 PM Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> 
>>Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 18/05/2003 18.46:
>>
>>
>>>on 5/18/03 9:16 AM bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>| Bugzilla Bug ID                                                        
  |
>>>>|     +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>|     | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New         ASS=Assigned             
  |
>>>>|     |         OPN=Reopened    VER=Verified    (Skipped Closed/Resolved)
  |
>>>>|     |   +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>|     |   | Severity: BLK=Blocker     CRI=Critical    MAJ=Major          
  |
>>>>|     |   |           MIN=Minor       NOR=Normal      ENH=Enhancement    
  |
>>>>|     |   |   +-------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>|     |   |   | Date Posted                                              
  |
>>>>|     |   |   |          +--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>|     |   |   |          | Description                                   
  |
>>>>|     |   |   |          |                                               
  |
>>>>| 3785|New|Nor|2001-09-23|xinclude transformer doesn't resolve relative urls|
...
>>>I think it would be useful to separate patches from bugs.
>>
>>Yup, that's in my version.
> 
> Yeah, I recall now. But I think it would be much more useful to have it
> in the above super-brief format, one for bugs only (unlike the above)
> and another for patches.
...
> that would be supercool, but please, keep the above format which is very
>  compact and useful. to be honest, your patch-queue looked too noisy to
> be of real use.

Actually, it was thought for the patch submitters, not the developers.
It was meant to show that patches were in line and going to be evaluated...

> In fact, the above is much more compact and the remaining "total number"
> is probably the only thing people care to look at.

Which is what happened instead, because the patches, that were thought 
to be no more than ten, became 28!

> Ah, since we are at it, ordering for bug number is totally useless. it
> should be ordered by criticity, with a different total count for each
> section, and, in the same section, the un-assigned one should be put on top.

Yup.

> We should make it easier for people to get in and *know* which bug is
> more important than another: chronological order doesn't reflect this at
> all!

For bugs it's paramount. For patches it's usually how old it is that 
matters, because urgent ones are usually applied right away.

...
>>The script has been in Cocoon CVS for ages till I removed since nobody 
>>cared. I'll move it to Gump as another nag-the-list feature ASA I come 
>>back from Frankfurt.
> 
> 
> That would be great, thanks.
> 

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message