[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
|