That was me, which explains how I got on the 'leaderboard' for the first
time ever... :-D
Someone then came round and changed all the REMINDs to
'something-other-than-remind', saying effectively that we don't use REMIND;
bugs should either be left open or resolved INVALID/WORKSFORME/WONTFIX. Is
this right? I can see the logic of that in one sense, but in another it
makes sense to me to have a way of marking bugs as "this isn't fixed and is
valid, but has been stale for years, no one gives a damn and it's unlikely
to ever get any movement". Thoughts? Is the REMIND resolution useful?
--HM
"K. Peachey" <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c103ee70907270130i76f16368u808fcdfe08384c55@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Andrew
Dunbar<hippytrail(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
2009/7/27 Nikola Smolenski
<smolensk(a)eunet.yu>yu>:
reporter(a)isidore.wikimedia.org wrote:
MediaWiki Bugzilla Report for July 20, 2009 -
July 27, 2009
Bugs NEW : 165
Bugs RESOLVED : 174
I think this is the first time for quite a while that more bugs have
been resolved than created. Congratulations to everyone responsible! :)
Could it be due to the new "known to fail" logic?
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
Someone (I forget who) when though and marked all the old bugs that
are possibly fixed or fixed as either FIXED or REMIND. that is what
most likely caused it.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l