[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Allura at SF is ready

From: James
Subject: Re: Allura at SF is ready
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:22:28 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

Hello Trevor,

On 30/08/15 15:00, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> James, you wrote Sunday, August 30, 2015 1:47 PM
>> Some comments if I may be so bold.
> Of course - most welcome!
>> 1. I think it would be useful to have 'Searches' (defined on that left
>> hand side panel) for each of the Patch states
>> New
>> Review
>> Countdown
>> Push
> Presumably you'd like these restricted to status:Started?  Otherwise you'll 
> see lots of status:Verified, Abandoned, etc.  Anyway, that's what I've done - 
> easily changed though.
> These are the four Patch( ... ) searches.
> Open(Patch) now shows all the Started issues with a non-zero patch field.  
> Useful for finding issues with incorrectly set fields.  As a dev you can fix 
> these.  It also includes the needs_work, abandoned, and waiting patch states.
>> The 'Fixed' search
> This shows all the patches waiting to be Verified.  Useful for the bug squad.
>> 2. It seems that the 'Needs' field is mandatory and this is going to be
>> misleading I think. For example if you look at the new issue I entered
>> manually:
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4576/
>> This has a 'Needs: design' tag which is inappropriate (and incorrect).
> I've defined " " as the default for this field; should be OK for new issues 
> now.  That also reminded me to define defaults for other fields too.
>> Otherwise it seems simple enough.
> Thanks!
> Trevor
Thank you.

I've 'synced' my list of Patches I've been keeping track of manually
with the issues list now.

Is this set of issues going to be the one we migrate to the 'new' non-SF

I.e. do we now treat this as a live system?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]