From dev-return-7766-apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive=stdcxx.apache.org@stdcxx.apache.org Wed Jun 04 22:25:00 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 91330 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2008 22:24:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2008 22:24:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 28548 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2008 22:24:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 28516 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2008 22:24:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 28481 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2008 22:24:59 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:24:58 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [208.30.140.160] (HELO moroha.roguewave.com) (208.30.140.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:24:03 +0000 Received: from exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com (exchmail01.blue.roguewave.com [10.22.129.22]) by moroha.roguewave.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m54MOPm6021342 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:24:25 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x regular expressions Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:24:24 -0600 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x regular expressions Thread-Index: AcjGjfAn2huoVmuHQny4SxPc0Y/MxwAA4CJQ References: <711621612.1212610365026.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <4846F901.6090109@roguewave.com> <4846FB3C.80809@roguewave.com> <4847077B.3040002@roguewave.com> <48470F24.3090706@roguewave.com> From: "Eric Lemings" To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:55 PM > To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org > Subject: Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x=20 > regular expressions >=20 > Eric Lemings wrote: > > =20 > >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20 > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 3:22 PM > >> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x=20 > >> regular expressions > >> > >> Eric Lemings wrote: > >>> =20 > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Eric Lemings=20 > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:58 PM > >>>> To: 'dev@stdcxx.apache.org' > >>>> Subject: RE: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x=20 > >>>> regular expressions > >>>> > >>>> =20 > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20 > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:30 PM > >>>>> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: [jira] Deleted: (STDCXX-33) Implement C++0x=20 > >>>>> regular expressions > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin Sebor wrote: > >>>>>> Could we move issues instead of deleting them? > >>>>> Also, we're still discussing what the plan is WRT how these > >>>>> components will be organized so these kinds of changes seem > >>>>> premature. In fact, I'm not sure I see why any issues need > >>>>> to be deleted or moved. Why can't the existing ones can be > >>>>> changed? > >>>> They are subtasks and subtasks can't be moved. I tried. > >>> Also, subtasks can't be broken down into smaller issues. Some of > >>> these issues will likely need to be subdivided into smaller chunks > >>> of work. > >> As a courtesy to the rest of us working on the project it would > >> be nice to let us know what restructuring changes you'd like to > >> make, and wait for feedback before making them. Especially > >> deleting issues should be brought up because doing so not only > >> permanently removes them from the database but also breaks any > >> links pointing to such issues. > >=20 > > Jira is pretty smart. It allows you to relink such issues before > > deleting issues so there are no broken links. >=20 > This is now a broken link: > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-33 >=20 > >=20 > > And the issues are still in the database. I just moved them from > > subtasks into individual issues. Or you'd prefer to keep the > > duplicate issues? >=20 > I would prefer us to have a plan before we start moving issues > around or permanently deleting them. >=20 > As it is, the rest of us are left to guess what's happening > with the existing issues, why they're being deleted, why new > ones are being created, or where you plan to stop. If you want > to change/improve things you need to let us in on your plan > ahead of time to make sure your changes don't adversely affect > anyone or that there isn't a better way to go about implementing > them. It's possible that we'd end up doing exactly what you did > in the end. The big difference is that we'd all understand and > (hopefully) agree with what's going on. Initiative...momentum got the better of me I suppose. :) Sorry. So what is it, in particular, that we all do NOT understand or agree with? I'll clarify if I can... or haven't already. Brad.