Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 42591 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2004 07:14:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2004 07:14:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 40391 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2004 07:14:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 40320 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2004 07:14:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 40253 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2004 07:14:10 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [81.209.148.130] (HELO dd2020.kasserver.com) (81.209.148.130) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:14:09 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (linux01.gwdg.de [134.76.13.21]) by dd2020.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784BE5B25A for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:13:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <40EA517B.1020508@vafer.org> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:15:07 +0200 From: Torsten Curdt User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cocoon DEV List Subject: the use of bugzilla X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Folks, please noone take this personal (reinhard, please don't) but am I the only one that thinks that this use of bugzilla is kinda awkward? http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25114 Having the Cocoon Forms "overview" in bugzilla to gather the dependency list is perfect IMHO. Definitely a good idea! But the above entry is just a reference to some documentation ...and it was entered as such. Do we wanna have such stuff in bugzilla? IMHO That's not the right place because we could end up with a huge amount of bugs just pointing to documentation. ...at least let's mark such stuff as "WON'T FIX" or something. WDYT? cheers -- Torsten