Re: Issues list status

[David Kastrup]

Phil Holmes <address@hidden> writes:

> A comment and a question about the status field of the issues list.
>
> Comment: with Google code, the status was automatically set to "Accepted" 
> for issues manually entered by a registered user.  I see no reason for not 
> continuing this policy, but it does mean that bug squad members (and 
> anyone else entering issues) needs to remember to set the status manually.
>
> Question: there's a number of patches from _ages_ ago 
> labelled "needs_work".  I believe we should change them to "abandoned", 
> but I also think that there's no point in leaving them 
> as "new", "accepted" or "started".  Seems to me that any with 
> patch:abandoned should be marked with invalid status.  Does the list
> agree?

No.  If a particular patch was not developed sufficiently to deal with a
particular problem, that does not make the problem magically go away.

Apropos issues: any news about our Allura installation?  What is holding
up the migration of the issues there?  The https certificate is not per
se a problem since developers can tell their browser explicitly to
accept a certificate issued for *.gnu.org even if our own DNS entry does
not (yet) fit that pattern.

Was there anything else?

-- 
David Kastrup