Joshua Slive wrote: > > I understand your reasoning, but I'd prefer not. I don't think there > are enough doc bugs to justify another list. As an alternative, we
Currently that are about 5% of all bugs (just used my link below with and without component value). And the reason to create a new list is actually because there is a comparable *low* number of documentation bugs such that at least some httpd-docs people do not have enough time to go through the bugs@ list. OTH I think 5% is enough such that we should increase visibility. Furthermore at least I would adjust the component of bugs more often to documentation if I would know that this makes this more visible to docs people. This is not a plain try to offload work, but a matter of priorities and to make things visible to people whose focus is more on this particular topic. > could simply put a link like this one: > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=Apache+httpd-1.3&product=Apache+httpd-2&component=Documentation&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED It may be only me working this way, but I really need the mailing list to attract my attention to bugs. If I would have to click on a link or a bookmark I would - check on bugs more infrequently - not notice that something to a bug has changed. Anyway if it turns out that the link solution is favoured over the new mailing list I would prefer using the following link as it also captures the NEEDINFO bugs: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=Apache+httpd-1.3&product=Apache+httpd-2&component=Documentation&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO Why that? Because sometimes people simply forget to change the status to ASSIGNED and then these bugs would fail from the radar. Regards Rüdiger --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
