[darcs-users] Do you really mean resolved here? (Was: [issue1304] do we need patch contexts to get inverses? no)
naur at post11.tele.dk
Sat Mar 14 13:41:14 UTC 2009
On Friday 13 March 2009 13:55, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Thorkil Naur writes:
> > > status: wont-fix -> resolved
> > In the GHC bugtracker, there is a status "invalid" for this sort of
> > thing,
> In the XEmacs tracker I've separated *status* (here "resolved" ==
> closed) from *reason* (here "wont-fix" and "invalid"; other values
> being "superseded", "fixed", "not a bug" == "invalid", and "not our
> For that matter, I've also separated *severity* (the user's
> perception, and only partially ordered, with values "inelegant",
> "inconvenient", "some work obstructed", "much work obstructed",
> "security", "data loss", "hang", and "crash") from *priority* (the
> developer's estimate of when he'll get to it, with values "critical"
> == show-stopper, "urgent", "normal", and "cosmetic").
> Unfortunately the tracker is inaccessible until Monday or so due to
> our DNS admin's failure to follow instructions on a host move :-( but
> when it comes back up you can find it at http://tracker.xemacs.org/.
> There's a detailed user guide, the first half of which is basically
> about XEmacs workflow and how the issue properties etc interact (down
> at the bottom of the sidebar).
Thank you for taking an interest in this. I will certainly have your ideas in
mind and also take a look at the XEmacs tracker before considering any
changes to the darcs bug tracker.
More information about the darcs-users