> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:40:12PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:45:16AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >> >> which is just great! >> >> >> >> I didn't realize that the updates system had such a functionality, I >> >> thought the bugzillas and cves should just be referenced for humans! >> >> >> >> The updates system is getting so much bashing these days, am I the >> >> only one that really likes it? :=) >> Your not the only one. > > :) Let's create the "protect the updates system" campagne ;) "Save Koji NOW"? > >> Personally I have the odd issue with it, > > What is the "odd issue"? The only thing I have on my wishlist is a > pure CLI, but I'm sure it will be there at some point and it's not > that painful to use the web either. Things like "what on earth is the next step" and stuff like sorting based on coloum etc. But I'm not too concerned. The AJAX for completing the NVR is extremely handy though. > >> but I'm trusting that the 1.1 milestone (see the hosted.fp.o trac) >> will fill the gaps. > >> >> >> >> (just a minor nitpicking if Luke's watching: the version's field in >> >> CLOSED/*RELEASE should include the release, not only the version >> >> field) >> That'd be useful >> > >> > And maybe automatically set the bug in "NEEDINFO from Reporter" state >> > when pushing to testing? :) >> Yes, that would be a good way to encourage people to test the packages >> (if >> they choose). >> >> On a side comment: >> I like the close/etc and the needinfo idea, but maybe set it as a >> per-maintainer or per-update preference? I'm just thinking about the >> maintainers that may wish to approach bugs different. Something like >> "Update specified bugs? Yes/Comment/No" (Yes - The works; Comment - Make >> comments to the bug but do not change statuses; No - Leave it alone) > > Yes, that would make sense, as surely people will think differently on > their workflow and offering choice will bring more people to the > "protect the updates system" campagne. ;) I wasn't really thinking workflow wise, I was thinking more email traffic wise. Email #1 - Bug has been updated - Some random message that makes sense but you don't know what you have to do Email #2 - Bug has been updated - Personal response from dev asking you if you can test the update Into Email - Bug updated - "A fix is in the testing system, any chance you could test it for me here, and give me some feedback". But yes, I guess it also protects the workflow so to speak. > -- > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
