> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>> Perhaps the tool that generates the list could be amended to list
>> "someone
>> other than maintainer has responded, but maintainer has not" cases. Is
>> this likely to generate a lot of false positives?
>
> I'd think that it generates quite some false positives.
>
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>> Perhaps the tool that generates the list could be amended to list
>> "someone
>> other than maintainer has responded, but maintainer has not" cases. Is
>> this likely to generate a lot of false positives?
>
> I'd think that it generates quite some false positives.
>
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Perhaps the tool that generates the list could be amended to list "someone
> other than maintainer has responded, but maintainer has not" cases. Is
> this likely to generate a lot of false positives?
I'd think that it generates quite some false positives.
It also leads
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Perhaps the tool that generates the list could be amended to list "someone
> other than maintainer has responded, but maintainer has not" cases. Is
> this likely to generate a lot of false positives?
I'd think that it generates quite some false positives.
It also leads
> The list is short, but I don't consider it to be complete. Several
> cases which aren't covered, such as when someone other than the
> maintainer confirms the bug or provides more info, or where there has
> been a dialog between the maintainer and reporter with the ball left in
> the maintainer'
> The list is short, but I don't consider it to be complete. Several
> cases which aren't covered, such as when someone other than the
> maintainer confirms the bug or provides more info, or where there has
> been a dialog between the maintainer and reporter with the ball left in
> the maintainer'
Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:01:03PM -0600, John Belmonte wrote:
I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
These are RC bugs older than 2 weeks that have no follow-ups. I find
that I'm able to be the m
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
bugs. A few of these bugs stem from known issues like the ruby 1.6->1.8
transition; i. e., the lack of follow-ups on a particular bug is
misleading, because it's mostly there as a reminder or to bl
Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:01:03PM -0600, John Belmonte wrote:
I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
These are RC bugs older than 2 weeks that have no follow-ups. I find
that I'm able to be the most
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
bugs. A few of these bugs stem from known issues like the ruby 1.6->1.8
transition; i. e., the lack of follow-ups on a particular bug is
misleading, because it's mostly there as a reminder or to bloc
>> Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
>> bugs. A few of these bugs stem from known issues like the ruby 1.6->1.8
>> transition; i. e., the lack of follow-ups on a particular bug is
>> misleading, because it's mostly there as a reminder or to block
>> propagati
>> Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
>> bugs. A few of these bugs stem from known issues like the ruby 1.6->1.8
>> transition; i. e., the lack of follow-ups on a particular bug is
>> misleading, because it's mostly there as a reminder or to block
>> propagati
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:28:56PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
> > http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
> Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
> bugs. A few of t
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:28:56PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
> > http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
> Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
> bugs. A few of t
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:01:03PM -0600, John Belmonte wrote:
> I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
>
> http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
>
> These are RC bugs older than 2 weeks that have no follow-ups. I find
> that I'm able to be the most helpful w
> Hello,
>
> I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
>
> http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
Thanks, John; I found this helpful, on two scores. One, I spotted one
package on your list that I care about and feel competent to help with
(lyx); I'm putting togeth
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:01:03PM -0600, John Belmonte wrote:
> I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
>
> http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
>
> These are RC bugs older than 2 weeks that have no follow-ups. I find
> that I'm able to be the most helpful w
> Hello,
>
> I've put together a list of neglected RC bugs:
>
> http://memebeam.org/john/tests/bug-mining/neglected-bugs.html
Thanks, John; I found this helpful, on two scores. One, I spotted one
package on your list that I care about and feel competent to help with
(lyx); I'm putting togeth
18 matches
Mail list logo
