Close, not delete. The bugs should still be in the system for reference.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Terence Heaford
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion LC should remove all these bugs from the database,
> > arbitrarily back to a date(?) and
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Terence Heaford
wrote:
> In my opinion LC should remove all these bugs from the database,
> arbitrarily back to a date(?) and start again.
>
>
This is effectively being done: messages go out that unless the reporter
takes the time to confirm with a newer version,
Terence Heaford wrote:
> In my opinion LC should remove all these bugs from the database,
> arbitrarily back to a date(?) and start again.
>
> Pick a date, say 1 January 2014 or some other date and delete all
> bugs earlier than this. Post notices advising everyone of this and
> away we go again.
> On 19 Mar 2015, at 20:08, Richmond wrote:
>
> BUG 1855: Nothing in 10 years
>
> BUG 6380: Nothing in 6 years
>
> Why is there a bug/request system if bugs/requests like this are COMPLETELY
> ignored?
>
> These both refer to USB connectivity . . .
>
> I see that Jacque Landman Gay was chas
On 3/19/2015 3:08 PM, Richmond wrote:
BUG 1855: Nothing in 10 years
BUG 6380: Nothing in 6 years
Why is there a bug/request system if bugs/requests like this are
COMPLETELY ignored?
These both refer to USB connectivity . . .
I see that Jacque Landman Gay was chasing the first one.
If I had
BUG 1855: Nothing in 10 years
BUG 6380: Nothing in 6 years
Why is there a bug/request system if bugs/requests like this are
COMPLETELY ignored?
These both refer to USB connectivity . . .
I see that Jacque Landman Gay was chasing the first one.
Richmond.
