[squeak-dev] Mantis usage rules du jour

Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
Sun Feb 24 19:26:31 UTC 2013


On 24.02.2013, at 19:51, "Ron Teitelbaum" <ron at usmedrec.com> wrote:

>> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
>> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bert Freudenberg
>> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:22 PM
>> 
>> On 23.02.2013, at 19:02, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Mantis might appear less dead if reports/changes got posted to
> squeak-
>> dev. Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> The reason it doesn't already do this is just that I didn't want to
> annoy
>> everyone. I think it's a great idea. What granularity ought to apply?
> Mails on
>> new issues? State changes (to see when something's resolved)?
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, great idea. I'd say send messages for both, with a [Bugs] tag for
> easy
>> filtering.
>>> 
>>> Colin
>> 
>> +1 for [Bugs] because short.
>> 
>> - Bert -
>> 
> 
> Bugs is good because of bugs.squeak.org and mantis does come from bug.  I
> thought about bugs first but was thinking that we don't use mantis to
> document bugs only.  We use it for new code, for making changes to working
> code and such.  It works fine for me but I wonder if the name would prevent
> some people from using it, or would it cause some confusion.  
> 
> [Squeak-dev] should really be [commits].  Maybe [Bugs] should be [changes]
> or [discuss].
> 
> Ron

[squeak-dev] is added to all mails by the list software.

[Bugs] would be in addition.

Actually, since we don't have a [tag] for commit messages either, maybe we don't need them, as long as the rest of the generated subject still allows filtering?

- Bert -




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list