[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lilypond-bug
Subject:    Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB
From:       "Trevor Daniels" <t.daniels () treda ! co ! uk>
Date:       2015-10-26 12:36:25
Message-ID: assp.0741a9a296.BF5F19011D41455A929121D1433018D5 () TrevorLaptop
[Download RAW message or body]


James wrote Monday, October 26, 2015 11:54 AM

> On 26/10/15 11:29, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > Devs, Bug Squad:
> > 
> > Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not seeing \
> > any change for several years.  Following the move of the Issues DB from GC to SF \
> > many of the original owners of these Started Issues have not re-registered at SF; \
> > indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and it seems inconsistent for \
> > these issues to have a status of Started when they have no Owner.  I'd like to \
> > tidy up this situation by reverting these issues to Status:Accepted so they \
> > become more obviously available for someone else to select for further work by \
> > appearing in the Open (Accepted) list. 
> > To this end I've already reassigned those not seeing any action for over 3 years. \
> > Unless I hear objections I'll continue reassigning more recently moribund issues \
> > until the Open (Begun) and Open (Patch) lists reflect more closely the issues \
> > actually under active consideration. 
> > Comments?
> 
> I think you should also be setting the 'owner' if it has any to 'blank'
> (if that wasn't already implied) for issues that are 'Started' and have
> an 'owner' but have had no activity for a similar amount of time.

I shall, although the Owner field is almost always blank anyway for these moribund \
issues.  During the migration it was filled in only for those Devs who were already \
registered at SF.

> I think this may overlap the 'patch-abandoned' discussion - which i
> still need to go back a review as part of my Patch Meister duties.

I don't think what I said conflicts with anything we discussed then - I'm just \
getting on  with doing it.  Usually I shall leave the patch status unchanged, unless \
on inspection I think it looks wrong, in which case I shall add a comment explaining \
any change I make.

Trevor

_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]