On Mon, 24 May 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > One way to deal with this is to just mark all your bugs as wish list. The
> > nags don't react to wish list bugs ;-)
>
> I hope you arn't seriously advocating that. It's fine for you, if you can
> keep straight whoch of the bugs are
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> One way to deal with this is to just mark all your bugs as wish list. The
> nags don't react to wish list bugs ;-)
I hope you arn't seriously advocating that. It's fine for you, if you can
keep straight whoch of the bugs are real bugs that need to be fixed. But if
anyone else
Christian Kurz wrote:
> Well what is the problem with this? I don't see any offence in getting a
> message that says that I (the maintainer) has still open bug over a
> certain age. I think this is a good reminder for the maintainers as you
> may forget to fix bugs. Take a look at the ppp-package a
Hi,
>>"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> What does that treatment involve exactly?
My lawyer says I should not answer this question.
Hamish> Personally I can't see what the fuss is; I'd just delete it if
Hamish> I didn't like it.
Ah, the classic re
On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 03:24:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Someone wishing to have a reminder of bug status may choose to subscribe
> > to a report.
> >
> > Closing bugs just because you can't fix them is wrong.
>
> I *NEVER* said that one oug
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 01:00:19AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> I mean, fix bugs. Then they can be closed. I am aware that
> John> not all bugs have easy solutions, but just because the solution
> John> isn't easy doesn't mean
Hi,
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I mean, fix bugs. Then they can be closed. I am aware that
John> not all bugs have easy solutions, but just because the solution
John> isn't easy doesn't mean that it is any less important to fix
John> it.
And unwanted,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
> Can the script please be disabled.
Absolutely. I've asked before for the nag widget to be turned off, and I
strongly support turning it off now.
Yes, I have a couple of packag
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21 May 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> > > twice a week to every developer.
> >
> > I don't get such a report.
>
> Prob
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone wishing to have a reminder of bug status may choose to subscribe
> to a report.
>
> Closing bugs just because you can't fix them is wrong.
I *NEVER* said that one ought to do that, and AFAIK, nobody else did
either.
--
John Goerzen Linux, U
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> >> twice a week to every developer.
>
> John> I don't get such a report.
>
> Because, unlike the nag rep
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:34:16PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Wrong. Brian White is no longer the release manager, so he has no special
> > privilege to send mails like this.
>
> What special priviledge is necessary? The very fact that the bug has
> been open for that long I think entitles a
On 21 May 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> > twice a week to every developer.
>
> I don't get such a report.
Probably because you are not subscribed to the bug-report mailing
Hi,
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
>> twice a week to every developer.
John> I don't get such a report.
Because, unlike the nag reports
Hi,
>>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Wrong. Brian White is no longer the release manager, so he has no special
>> privilege to send mails like this.
John> What special priviledge is necessary? The very fact that the b
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 08:33:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Why don't you close the bugs?
I need a time machine :-)
Too many projects on, and I'm afraid that recently my Debian commitments
have suffered at the hands of other projects.
Adrian
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.poboxes.com/
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong. Brian White is no longer the release manager, so he has no special
> privilege to send mails like this.
What special priviledge is necessary? The very fact that the bug has
been open for that long I think entitles anyone to send them out.
>
Why don't you close the bugs?
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
> Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
> you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important t
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> twice a week to every developer.
I don't get such a report.
> If this was simply a report to the list, once in a while, like the
> "critical bugs that need to be fixed" list,
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:
> At 18:10 +0100 1999-05-20, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> >On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 06:47:28AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian> Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I
> >> never
> >> Brian> subscribed to that. :p
> >>
At 18:10 +0100 1999-05-20, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 06:47:28AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian> Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
Brian> subscribed to that. :p
All I'm saying: Everybody is free to procmail away whatever they don't l
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 06:47:28AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> Brian> Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
> Brian> subscribed to that. :p
>
> All I'm saying: Everybody is free to procmail away whatever they don't like.
This sounds like a good idea - s
Christian Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:48:25AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > Christian Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Example: I've got an open old bug report that flying
> > > (a X11 pool game) doesn't support 16/24 bit displays. The upstream
> >
> > Th
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:48:25AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Christian Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Example: I've got an open old bug report that flying
> > (a X11 pool game) doesn't support 16/24 bit displays. The upstream
>
> This would speak for making the mechanismen configurable.
Brian> Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
Brian> subscribed to that. :p
All I'm saying: Everybody is free to procmail away whatever they don't like.
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
Christian Meder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:24:19PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > Well what is the problem with this? I don't see any offence in getting a
> > message that says that I (the maintainer) has still open bug over a
> > certain age. I think this is a good r
[DONT SEND ME A CC!]
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > [You don't need to send me an extra Cc as I read the lists on which I
> > write. Thanks!]
> >
> > Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 10:26:11PM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> You are subscribed to a mailing list debian-devel, aren't you?
Nag also sends emails regarding old bugs on your packages. I never
subscribed to that. :p
--
Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian Linux Developer - h
At 22:26 -0400 1999-05-19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian> I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian> TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Dirk> Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out
Dirk> on master.
Joel> Wtf do you mean subscribe? None of u
Brian> I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian> TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Dirk> Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out
Dirk> on master.
Joel> Wtf do you mean subscribe? None of us signed up for the fucking
Joel> thing!
At 21:28 -0400 1999-05-19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Brian> I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian> TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out on master.
Wtf do you mean subscribe? None of us signed up for the f
Brian> I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to
Brian> TURN THE BLOODY THING OFF.
Subscribe with your @debian.org address so that you procmail it out on master.
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:35:46PM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
> Ah, I see. I thought I recalled you saying something on a list that having
> something
> added to the BTS would make your job easier...I stand corrected.
Oh, I'm sure there are. But Brian's nag mails seem to be utterly
orthogonal
Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:28:33PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > So where's the problem with getting an reminder about your old open
> > bugs, which you need to fix?
> I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to TURN THE
> BLOO
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:24:19PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Well what is the problem with this? I don't see any offence in getting a
> message that says that I (the maintainer) has still open bug over a
> certain age. I think this is a good reminder for the maintainers as you
> may forget to
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
> [You don't need to send me an extra Cc as I read the lists on which I
> write. Thanks!]
>
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:28:33PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> So where's the problem with getting an reminder about your old open
> bugs, which you need to fix?
I don't NEED a reminder about my bugs. There should be an option to TURN THE
BLOODY
THING OFF.
--
Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:28:16PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'd like to correct you on this point.
>
> I can and do periodically go through the massive list of ancient bugs
> against X. It's just too much for me to handle. In many cases there is
> too little information in the bug report
Brian Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > And what do you propose should be done with bugs that are so old? Still
> > let them stay open and look somewhere else? No, that isn't a solution.
> > The solution is to contact the develo
[You don't need to send me an extra Cc as I read the lists on which I
write. Thanks!]
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 11:08:02AM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
> Considering the X bug list, I'm sure branden got a quite large mailing from
> 'Nag'
> about old bugs - yet from what I understand, he can't possibly go through
> that list
> until some modifications are done to the BTS. 'Nag' also
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 12:35:27PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> twice a week to every developer.
It does? It sure didn't send that anything like that to me...
--
enJoy -*/\*- http://jagor.srce.hr/~jrodin/
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent
> > > > out.
> > > > Can the script please be disab
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 04:45:11PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> And what do you propose should be done with bugs that are so old? Still
> let them stay open and look somewhere else? No, that isn't a solution.
> The solution is to contact the developer and ask them about the bugs and
> try to trac
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
> > > Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
> > > you have ope
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
> Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
> you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
> recent bugs too.
No, these
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:32:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
> > Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
> > you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important
At 19:59 +0100 1999-05-18, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
recent bugs too.
To me, thes
>
> I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
> Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
> you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
> recent bugs too.
>
I would rather see the old bugs closed. An ol
I'm not the only one to be annoyed at the nag messages that are sent out.
Can the script please be disabled. There are better ways to find out bugs
you have open. Long-standing bugs are likely to be less important than
recent bugs too.
(or do we need a vote or something)
Cheers
Adrian
email:
50 matches
Mail list logo
