Re: pygobject bug spring cleaning

Am 24.04.2012 17:39, schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Martin Pitt [2012-04-20  9:03 +0200]:
>> In the past weeks I made some progress with reducing the pygobject
>> patch review queue (i. e. bugs with patches which are not needs-work,
>> committed, or rejected) from ~ 40 to currently 8, and I'll get it down
>> to 6 again soon. FYI, that search is public in bugzilla, you'll see it
>> as "pygobject patches" on your "saved searches" page [1].
> By now it's down to 4. Only one (616045) has an applicable patch, but
> I don't like this very much, so it'll stay in the queue for now
> (unless someone else wants to take it).
That's great!

>> However, pygobject still has 165 open bugs at the time:
>> What do you think about doing some spring cleaning there to make the
>> bug list useful again?
> I'm really happy to say that this is (99%) done now. The pad is
> currently not responding, but looking at the bug list again we now
> have ZERO unconfirmed bugs left, 71 "new" ones (i. e. confirmed with
> 3.2.0, having a reproducer) and 20 "needsinfo". Along the process we
> also fixed a couple of trivial bugs, duplicated some, and
> re-prioritized some to stand out (e. g. 669157).
The only one left is bug 616453 now, I briefly looked at it but I'm
currently too lazy to try if it still applies.

We could also make use of the GNOME version field in bugzilla to mark
the must-be-fixed for GNOME 3.6 bugs. Bug 653151 should be on that list
as well, in my opinion.

> Many thanks to Dieter and Sebastian for joining the spring cleaning!
You're welcome.

Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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