Re: issues to verify

[Dmytro O. Redchuk]

Hi, Graham!

  I am sorry to say that I will be unable to participate in bug squad duties
  for at least few months.

  Thank you, thank you developers and everyone who makes lilypond better .)

  I am sorry that I am saying this in in such a stupid way, I am sorry that
  this happens so "suddenly" (I had a hope to do "everything undone so far",
  but now I am unable, really) -- please, be lenient.

  Thank you!


On Sat 29 Oct 2011, 05:42 Graham Percival wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:51:33PM +0300, Dmytro O. Redchuk wrote:
> > On Fri 28 Oct 2011, 14:44 Phil Holmes wrote:
> > > I think we do need the version number where the fix is claimed -
> > > otherwise we would test fixes that aren't yet available in GUB, and
> > > find they don't work.
> > Well.. I think _we_ do need, really.. BugSquad, I mean. Do developers need 
> > it?
> > Should we require these labels be assigned?
> 
> They were initially started by developers, and I think they're
> still a good idea.  I think you should add that label for anything
> that's missing it -- as long as you keep the "issues to verify"
> list at 0 entries after a GUB release, anything that's claimed as
> fixed but doesn't have a fixed_x_y_z tag can be just set to the
> next devel version number.
> 
> If there's anything in the backlog that you can't figure out, then
> ask about that issue and we'll get it cleared up.  If you don't
> have an answer in... oh, 3 days?... then ask again.  If you still
> don't have an answer in another 3 days, then ask again, but less
> politely.  etc.
> 
> - Graham

-- 
  Dmytro O. Redchuk