Subject: Re: Suggested bug categories
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 12 2001 - 19:02:00 CST
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:31:08AM -0800, Paul Rohr wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 3/12/01 -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 08:23:10AM -0800, Paul Rohr wrote:
> >> As I've been pointing out to various folks in private, I really, really
> like
> >> how Eazel's been influencing a lot of prominent Open Source efforts to use
> >> Bugzilla to track "all unfinished work". Getting stuff like this right
> >> really helps.
> >
> >Well, I'm not sure Eazel gets all the credit for this, but it is an
> >excellent idea.
>
> On the "credit where credit is due" theory, please let me know who else I
> should be praising. It *is* an excellent idea, and that's the first place I
> saw it done so prominently. :-)
>
Mozilla does this too, and I think did it before Eazel existed. :-)
Search for "libpr0n" in bugzilla.mozilla.org to see their project
tracking for the new image library.
> >However, I think it conflicts with the goal of
> >getting rid of TODO as a category. For example, where else would you
> >suggest that I locate the 1.0 and 0.9 tracking bugs?
>
> Please explain. If we have milestone support, then I don't see the
> conflict. For example, we could easily say that all of the following work
> "should" get done for 0.9:
See the following two bugs, which is what I was actually referencing:
1221
1222
sam th --- sam@uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Mar 12 2001 - 18:56:08 CST