Re: martin f krafft 2006-09-05 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Couldn't this be written more simply using bts (which already
> > provides most of the functionality you are proposing, which many
> > more bells and whistles)? Then there could be a command "bts
> > claimbug" which did exactly what you've spe
also sprach Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.08.1231 +0200]:
> (And having 2 tags per claim is overkill.)
How so? If we have a method to cleanse them, and a method to
automate the claims, what's overkill?
> Please stick with the current method - if there are too many bugs
> the QA team
Re: martin f krafft 2006-09-07 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am a little more for the first method because it contains the
> unobfuscated email address of the claimer. Sure, if all we do is
> prefix bsp--, the information is still there.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
If I'm squashing bugs outside
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:17:41AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.07.0004 +0200]:
> > Alternatively, something like:
> >
> > user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > usertag 123456 + bsp-zurich-madduck
> >
> > and then search for bsp-zurich-* usertags. (
also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.07.0004 +0200]:
> Alternatively, something like:
>
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> usertag 123456 + bsp-zurich-madduck
>
> and then search for bsp-zurich-* usertags. (I don't know if that's
> possible, though. Testing it out)
We know now th
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:04:36PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Alternatively, something like:
>
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> usertag 123456 + bsp-zurich-madduck
>
> and then search for bsp-zurich-* usertags. (I don't know if that's
> possible, though. Testing it out)
Yup - it works. Check
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 08:45:17AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.06.0749 +0200]:
> > > But then we'll have two addresses in use already, which means
> > > two independent sources of information about claims. Not good if
> > > you ask me.
> >
also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.06.0749 +0200]:
> > But then we'll have two addresses in use already, which means
> > two independent sources of information about claims. Not good if
> > you ask me.
>
> Well, then, how about attaching a second usertag: bspclaim or
> somethin
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 05:43:55AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.2146 +0200]:
> > How about using a different user name for BSPs, say
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And then one of the QA team removes
> > all claims two days after the BSP is over.
also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.2146 +0200]:
> How about using a different user name for BSPs, say
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And then one of the QA team removes
> all claims two days after the BSP is over.
But then we'll have two addresses in use already, which means two
indep
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:56:47AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.0732 +0200]:
> > I see. So would it also be good to build in an auto-timeout feature?
>
> Yes, but I don't like the idea of using at(1) for that, simply
> because the machi
also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.0732 +0200]:
> I see. So would it also be good to build in an auto-timeout feature?
Yes, but I don't like the idea of using at(1) for that, simply
because the machine on which you claimed the bug may no longer exist
after the BSP (which wi
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:57:56AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.04.2138 +0200]:
> > Couldn't this be written more simply using bts (which already
> > provides most of the functionality you are proposing, which many
> > more bells and whistle
also sprach Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.04.2138 +0200]:
> Couldn't this be written more simply using bts (which already
> provides most of the functionality you are proposing, which many
> more bells and whistles)? Then there could be a command "bts
> claimbug" which did exactly wha
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 11:07:20AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Package: devscripts
> Version: 2.9.21
> Severity: wishlist
>
> http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/debian/claimbug
Couldn't this be written more simply using bts (which already provides
most of the functionality you are proposing, whic
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.9.21
Severity: wishlist
http://svn.madduck.net/pub/bin/debian/claimbug
Thanks,
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
16 matches
Mail list logo
