Re: [gitg] proposal: recategorize or close all bugs for old gitg

Hi, Jesse!

OK I will remember that. Do you want me to re-open bugs that are about problems in un-implemented features?

I don't know what to make of these bugs:

Bug 667732 - Segmentation fault when swithing to "All branches" in a huge repo

Bug 620834 - Display "commit name" in tooltips when hovering the lane bubbles

Bug 667671 - Remove leading/trailing spaces from get_value_process
(Was this patch accepted? I was unable to find any commit by that author's name in master)


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jesse van den Kieboom <jessevdk gmail com> wrote:
Hey Sindhu,

First of all, great work in cleaning this up! I have one nitpick however, I think that it would maybe be better not to close bug reports about features that are not yet implemented in the new gitg, as obsolete. The thing is that when we _do_ implement these features, it will be very useful to have these bugs around so we don't make the same mistakes. In particular some features like commit and branch actions (checkout, delete, create, etc.).

2013/6/17 Sindhu S <sindhus live in>
I think I am mostly done!

These are the stats:;emaillongdesc1=1;field0-0-0=product;type0-0-1=substring;field0-0-1=component;resolution=FIXED;resolution=WONTFIX;resolution=DUPLICATE;resolution=NOTABUG;resolution=NOTGNOME;resolution=INCOMPLETE;resolution=INVALID;resolution=OBSOLETE;field0-0-4=longdesc;emailtype1=substring;chfieldto=Now;chfield=[Bug%20creation];chfield=alias;chfield=assigned_to;chfield=cclist_accessible;chfield=component;chfield=deadline;chfield=emblems;chfield=everconfirmed;chfield=externalcc;chfield=cf_gnome_target;chfield=cf_gnome_version;chfield=keywords;chfield=op_sys_details;chfield=op_sys;chfield=rep_platform;chfield=priority;chfield=product;chfield=qa_contact;chfield=reporter_accessible;chfield=resolution;chfield=bug_severity;chfield=bug_status;chfield=short_desc;chfield=target_milestone;chfield=bug_file_loc;chfield=version;chfield=version_details;chfield=votes;chfield=status_whiteboard;query_format=advanced;type0-0-3=substring;field0-0-3=status_whiteboard;chfieldfrom=2013-06-09;bug_status=UNCONFIRMED;bug_status=NEW;bug_status=ASSIGNED;bug_status=REOPENED;bug_status=NEEDINFO;bug_status=RESOLVED;bug_status=VERIFIED;field0-0-2=short_desc;;type0-0-0=substring;product=gitg;type0-0-2=substring

I've left the enhancements, memory and performance bug alone.
I have tried to reproduce all bug reports against current git master and then given the resolution.


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Sindhu S <sindhus live in> wrote:

Sorry it took me awhile to take the first step. I realised today that I don't have the rights to create a  new component for our gitg project bugpage and hence have filed a bug requested for 'gitg-0.x' to transfer all bugs related to C-version of gitg that are left over from filtering those that are valid/present for vala version and wishlist-features.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Sindhu S <sindhus live in> wrote:
Aite, attempting this today.

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Adam Dingle <adam medovina org> wrote:
Jesse's proposal sounds reasonable to me.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Sindhu S <sindhu oxf gmail com> wrote:
I agree with the suggested measures. Nacho and adam? Confirm please.

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone.

From: Jesse van den Kieboom <jessevdk gnome org>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:49:15 +0200
To: Sindhu S<sindhus live in>
Cc: Adam Dingle<adam medovina org>; gitg-list<gitg-list gnome org>
Subject: Re: [gitg] proposal: recategorize or close all bugs for old gitg

My take on this. I think we can move all the current bugzilla reports related to the C version of gitg  to a new component. Maybe call it gitg-0.x or something like that. If there are any bugs which specifically relate to bugs that are no longer present/valid for the vala version, then those can be closed. However, if they relate to things like not-yet-implemented features, then we should keep them and close them whenever it's implemented in the new gitg.

2013/5/31 Sindhu S <sindhus live in>
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. 


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.  Should we move these bugs to a separate component, or just close them?

Do you want to close out these bugs, or should I?  (I would need permissions to change the status of arbitrary bugs in gitg - I can't do that now.)


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.  The new implementation in Vala in git master is the future and is the only version under development.  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.  What do you gitg developers think?


gitg-list mailing list
gitg-list gnome org

Ignacio Casal Quinteiro

gitg-list mailing list
gitg-list gnome org

gitg-list mailing list
gitg-list gnome org

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