I am waiting on an OK for this. Please confirm and let me know what bugs you wanted re-categorized/closed/tested to confirm behaviour in master and so on.ÂThanks.On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sindhu S <sindhus live in> wrote:I can do it, as I have both the time and the special permissions required on bugzilla.On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Adam Dingle <adam medovina org> wrote:
OK, great. Â Should we move these bugs to a separate component, or just close them?Do you want to close out these bugs, or should I? Â (I would need permissions to change the status of arbitrary bugs in gitg - I can't do that now.)adam
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Ignacio Casal Quinteiro <nacho resa gmail com> wrote:
Hey Adam,both things look good to me.On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Adam Dingle <adam medovina org> wrote:
Bugzilla currently contains lots of bugs that apply only to the old gitg implementation written in C. Â The new implementation in Vala in git master is the future and is the only version under development. Â This is confusing at best, so I propose that we either (a) move all bugs for the old gitg into a separate Bugzilla component, e.g. 'old-gitg', or (b) simply close these bugs, marking them INVALID or WONTFIX. Â What do you gitg developers think?adam
_______________________________________________
gitg-list mailing list
gitg-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gitg-list
--
Ignacio Casal Quinteiro
_______________________________________________
gitg-list mailing list
gitg-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gitg-list
_______________________________________________
gitg-list mailing list
gitg-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gitg-list