thanks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of karl.ramberg at chello.se
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 3:02 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Cc: denker at iam.unibe.ch; squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Conflicts in BFAV posts
> 
> 
> "Thomas Koenig" <tomkoenig at mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> > Marcus, I see you've done a lot of reviews that resulted in 
> conflicts. 
> > One of the more tedious parts of reviewing fixes is looking 
> to see if 
> > they would regress some other change. Is there something 
> special you 
> > are doing to check for conflicts in the BFAV posts?
> 
> I belive he is using ConflictChecker (It's on SqueakMap).
> Doug made this to check for conflicts before putting stuff in 
> the update stream.
> 
> > 
> > You asked:
> > > Should we not add the conflict tag as a type tag for BFAV so posts
> > > with conflicts can be sorted under a conflicts tab. Fixes and 
> > > enhancements with conflicts are a special condition and should be 
> > > easily identified, and this would make BFAV easier to 
> overview. Right 
> > > now there is no way to seach for a post with conflicts.
> > 
> > I could make this change to BFAV if we really want it. However, it 
> > strikes me that "conflict" is orthoganal to the harvest status 
> > dimension that the tabs represent.  We've already added 'bugs' as 
> > another non-orthogonal aspect to the tabs.  Do we really want to 
> > continue that way?  The answer may very well be yes because 
> bugs and 
> > posts with conflicts merit special attention. If so, would 
> the order 
> > be bug, conficts, reviewed,approved, update, closed, all?  
> With a post 
> > being made a conflict unless it's in the approved, update, closed 
> > status?
> 
> A way of filtering out posts wich have conflicts
> or who needs more work would be good. These posts are 
> reviewed but are in special need of attention and right now 
> they lurk around forever. Just closing them is often not 
> satisfactory as they are not rejected, yet, they just need 
> some attention and massageing before 
> going in. We could have a timeout of a couple of months on the 
> conflict/needs more work status before we close the post.
> To put these post in a special group would make them visible 
> and clear up the process quite a bit.
> 
> > The other way we have of filtering are the three (not quite) regular
> > expressions: name, e-mail address and title.  We might 
> sacrifice one 
> > of these (name and email are redundant for my purposes) and 
> add logic 
> > to search on the labels.  This might allow us to search for 
> conflicts 
> > (or any other tag we decide to add latter
> 
> Maybe just expand to search all labels not just the group 
> labels would do it ? I'm not quite sure how to do that though.... Karl
>