[arch-general] closed bugs, open comments?
I find it pretty frustrating that once bugs are closed in http://bugs.archlinux.org/ you can no longer add comments. The only option you have is request re-opening of the bug, which, I guess, would then frustrate the maintainer who closed the bug. Adding comments to already closed bugs makes sense to me, since the *discussion* is almost always not over when it's (too hastily?) closed. Sometimes you want to add comments that strengthens the case for closing the report, which also means the report will not be re-opened in the future. Sometimes you need to supply more information. -- damjan
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing... I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs. I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed. 2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
I find it pretty frustrating that once bugs are closed in http://bugs.archlinux.org/ you can no longer add comments. The only option you have is request re-opening of the bug, which, I guess, would then frustrate the maintainer who closed the bug.
Adding comments to already closed bugs makes sense to me, since the *discussion* is almost always not over when it's (too hastily?) closed. Sometimes you want to add comments that strengthens the case for closing the report, which also means the report will not be re-opened in the future. Sometimes you need to supply more information.
-- damjan
Either you want to add information for justifying the cllosed bug, and in this case it's not a big deal since you basically agree that the bug should be closed. (I understand it can be a bit annoying in some cases though :)) Or you want to add information against the closing of the bug : in this case, it's exactly a request to reopen. On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Nicolas Bigaouette <nbigaouette@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
I find it pretty frustrating that once bugs are closed in http://bugs.archlinux.org/ you can no longer add comments. The only option you have is request re-opening of the bug, which, I guess, would then frustrate the maintainer who closed the bug.
Adding comments to already closed bugs makes sense to me, since the *discussion* is almost always not over when it's (too hastily?) closed. Sometimes you want to add comments that strengthens the case for closing the report, which also means the report will not be re-opened in the future. Sometimes you need to supply more information.
-- damjan
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Either you want to add information for justifying the cllosed bug, and in this case it's not a big deal since you basically agree that the bug should be closed. (I understand it can be a bit annoying in some cases though :)) Or you want to add information against the closing of the bug : in this case, it's exactly a request to reopen.
I'm on Xavier's side here. And Damjan is referring to a bug I closed, which was not a bug, as the directions were explained quite clearly in the man page. If you think the man page is wrong, report it to the upstream maintainer.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:48:16 -0600 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Either you want to add information for justifying the cllosed bug, and in this case it's not a big deal since you basically agree that the bug should be closed. (I understand it can be a bit annoying in some cases though :)) Or you want to add information against the closing of the bug : in this case, it's exactly a request to reopen.
I'm on Xavier's side here. And Damjan is referring to a bug I closed, which was not a bug, as the directions were explained quite clearly in the man page. If you think the man page is wrong, report it to the upstream maintainer.
Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem. Dieter
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 17:23, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem.
I'd agree with that. A bug can be closed because it is upstream and have workarounds, and people that will search about this bug will end on the bug report, so workarounds belong here IMHO. A bug can be closed and happen again, it would be bureaucratic to report the same bug again. A bug can be fixed by a method that limits some features, but could be fixed by another which wouldn't have those limitations. Mailing the maintainer means that it will only be widely available once the maintainer made the change. Then providing the alternative method via a comment on the bug report seems a good way IMHO, as everyone can try it ASAP. etc. -- Geoffroy Carrier
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Geoffroy Carrier <geoffroy.carrier@koon.fr> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 17:23, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem.
I'd agree with that. A bug can be closed because it is upstream and have workarounds, and people that will search about this bug will end on the bug report, so workarounds belong here IMHO.
In my opinion, bugs should not be closed in this case. The arch bug report should contain links to the upstream bug, to track its status. The arch bug report should only be closed when a patch from upstream has been applied to the arch package, or a new upstream version has been released and has been packaged in arch. The only case where it makes really sense to close it is when the bug is seen as invalid by upstream and is never going to be fixed.
A bug can be closed and happen again, it would be bureaucratic to report the same bug again.
That is exactly why you can re-open a bug..
A bug can be fixed by a method that limits some features, but could be fixed by another which wouldn't have those limitations. Mailing the maintainer means that it will only be widely available once the maintainer made the change. Then providing the alternative method via a comment on the bug report seems a good way IMHO, as everyone can try it ASAP. etc.
Looks like we are going to special cases now, so really not so important. For these special cases, it seems good enough to just open a new bug / feature request or to simply contact the maintainer.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:48:16 -0600 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Either you want to add information for justifying the cllosed bug, and in this case it's not a big deal since you basically agree that the bug should be closed. (I understand it can be a bit annoying in some cases though :)) Or you want to add information against the closing of the bug : in this case, it's exactly a request to reopen.
I'm on Xavier's side here. And Damjan is referring to a bug I closed, which was not a bug, as the directions were explained quite clearly in the man page. If you think the man page is wrong, report it to the upstream maintainer.
Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem.
True but leaving comments open means more emails. As one who is actually assigned to a lot of these bugs (and has to act on them), I get 30ish email threads a day (not sure of individual emails - thanks gmail!) from open bugs alone. If we start allowing comments on closed bugs, they're going to send me emails too and the actual stuff I need to do is going to get lost in the sea of emails. Not allowing comments on closed bugs is about signal vs noise. I, for one, would very much prefer as little noise as possible.
Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem.
True but leaving comments open means more emails. As one who is actually assigned to a lot of these bugs (and has to act on them), I get 30ish email threads a day (not sure of individual emails - thanks gmail!) from open bugs alone. If we start allowing comments on closed bugs, they're going to send me emails too and the actual stuff I need to do is going to get lost in the sea of emails.
Not allowing comments on closed bugs is about signal vs noise. I, for one, would very much prefer as little noise as possible.
You have the option instead of closing the bug, or denying comments, to just remove yourself from the notfication list or from the assignement. The problem here is that your equalizing noise to you, for noise to everyone else. -- damjan
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes you just have useful information that would interest the original poster, the people who helped him out and/or anyone who reads the ticket afterwards because he has the same problem.
True but leaving comments open means more emails. As one who is actually assigned to a lot of these bugs (and has to act on them), I get 30ish email threads a day (not sure of individual emails - thanks gmail!) from open bugs alone. If we start allowing comments on closed bugs, they're going to send me emails too and the actual stuff I need to do is going to get lost in the sea of emails.
Not allowing comments on closed bugs is about signal vs noise. I, for one, would very much prefer as little noise as possible.
You have the option instead of closing the bug, or denying comments, to just remove yourself from the notfication list or from the assignement.
Actually, I kinda don't have that option. I still seriously don't understand what this is about. Your bug was not a bug. Period. If you think the man page is wrong, then file a report upstream. The bug tracker is not a forum where we can talk about our feelings or how to link to certain libraries. It is for Arch Linux bugs.
Actually, I kinda don't have that option. I still seriously don't understand what this is about. Your bug was not a bug. Period.
That bug is not the single event that prompted me to write this mail. It has happened a lot. So let's focus on the main issue.
If you think the man page is wrong, then file a report upstream. The bug tracker is not a forum where we can talk about our feelings or how to link to certain libraries. It is for Arch Linux bugs.
Offtopic: Maybe I will, I see that Debian thinks gdbm does it wrong.. so maybe there something to it. And it's not like Arch hasn't patched anything ever. -- damjan
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I kinda don't have that option. I still seriously don't understand what this is about. Your bug was not a bug. Period.
That bug is not the single event that prompted me to write this mail. It has happened a lot. So let's focus on the main issue.
Then convince me - show me some real-world examples (URLs to bug reports) where comments after the fact would have been useful. Currently no one has produced an actual example aside from the fabled idea of a bug where it may be useful
Actually, I kinda don't have that option. I still seriously don't understand what this is about. Your bug was not a bug. Period.
That bug is not the single event that prompted me to write this mail. It has happened a lot. So let's focus on the main issue.
Then convince me - show me some real-world examples (URLs to bug reports) where comments after the fact would have been useful. Currently no one has produced an actual example aside from the fabled idea of a bug where it may be useful
I'll try, tell me first if it is of any help that https://bugs.freedesktop.org/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ https://bugs.kde.org/ do allow comments after closing bugs. Though, they also don't close bugs that hastily too. So finding examples there like you requested would be maybe harder. BTW I myself run a bug tracking site (http://bugs.softver.org.mk/) on which we have a policy that it's the reporter who needs to close the bug. -- damjan
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I kinda don't have that option. I still seriously don't understand what this is about. Your bug was not a bug. Period.
That bug is not the single event that prompted me to write this mail. It has happened a lot. So let's focus on the main issue.
Then convince me - show me some real-world examples (URLs to bug reports) where comments after the fact would have been useful. Currently no one has produced an actual example aside from the fabled idea of a bug where it may be useful
I'll try, tell me first if it is of any help that https://bugs.freedesktop.org/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ https://bugs.kde.org/ do allow comments after closing bugs. Though, they also don't close bugs that hastily too. So finding examples there like you requested would be maybe harder.
BTW I myself run a bug tracking site (http://bugs.softver.org.mk/) on which we have a policy that it's the reporter who needs to close the bug.
I'd prefer to stay away from the "look, these people do it that way!" arguments - very slippery slope there. Let's stick to Arch Linux bugs where this would be relevant
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I kinda don't have that option. I still seriously don't understand what this is about. Your bug was not a bug. Period.
That bug is not the single event that prompted me to write this mail. It has happened a lot. So let's focus on the main issue.
Then convince me - show me some real-world examples (URLs to bug reports) where comments after the fact would have been useful. Currently no one has produced an actual example aside from the fabled idea of a bug where it may be useful
I'll try, tell me first if it is of any help that https://bugs.freedesktop.org/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ https://bugs.kde.org/ do allow comments after closing bugs. Though, they also don't close bugs that hastily too. So finding examples there like you requested would be maybe harder.
No. That is of zero help.
BTW I myself run a bug tracking site (http://bugs.softver.org.mk/) on which we have a policy that it's the reporter who needs to close the bug.
You have 346 bugs total, including closed bugs. We have 13,300. Don't you think the scale is just slightly different here? We have 20-30 tasks opened a day, and expecting the original reporter to always follow up just isn't practical. Can you please stop this bickering in a public forum unless you have something that will actually improve things? I've seen nothing here that is productive yet, and I'm sorry to say my message doesn't add much more besides hopefully getting you to stop and actually form a decent solution to...oh yeah, we aren't even sure what the actual problem is. -Dan
Nicolas Bigaouette wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
Nicolas Bigaouette wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
some discussions are a real pain... there is a forum, mailing list, possibility to mail the maintainer, etc. perhaps (to please everyone) there could be smth like a bug-subforum: bug #ID -> thread #ID so discussion can go on. but, as someone earlier stated, a bug tracker is for reporting bugs, not a platform for discussions. vlad --
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
Nicolas Bigaouette wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
Instead of +1'ing this could you provide examples instead?
From my experience phrakture does the exact same opposite than what you are "accusing" him of. Usually he doesnt close the bugs even if he solves them. :P
-- Greg
Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
Nicolas Bigaouette wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
Instead of +1'ing this could you provide examples instead?
No not really, as I am done with this and I am not going to argue with anyone about this. It's just that I came looking for help and got slammed one too many times. Now I either go the the news groups for help or fix it my self. If I don't get a solution then I skip the package and move on.
From my experience phrakture does the exact same opposite than what you are "accusing" him of. Usually he doesnt close the bugs even if he solves them. :P
?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
Instead of +1'ing this could you provide examples instead?
No not really, as I am done with this and I am not going to argue with anyone about this.
It's just that I came looking for help and got slammed one too many times.
Now I either go the the news groups for help or fix it my self. If I don't get a solution then I skip the package and move on.
I saw all the bug reports you have opened right after i sent this email. The closed ones are either marked as fixed, duplicate, 1 because the package is not in the Arch repos anymore but in the unsupported section of AUR, which makes it irrelevant and theres http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12967 which according to the developer "doesnt stand". IMO none of those was closed too soon. Thats why i ask for examples, could you name one of those for which you had something constructive to say, and what?
From my experience phrakture does the exact same opposite than what you are "accusing" him of. Usually he doesnt close the bugs even if he solves them. :P
?
That was a general comment with a bit sense of humor regarding the reason this discussion started. Phrakture normally doesnt even close the bugs he fixes personally. I obviously meant to write "exact opposite" not "exact same opposite". -- Greg
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
Nicolas Bigaouette wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
Instead of +1'ing this could you provide examples instead?
No not really, as I am done with this and I am not going to argue with anyone about this.
It's just that I came looking for help and got slammed one too many times.
Now I either go the the news groups for help or fix it my self. If I don't get a solution then I skip the package and move on.
Out of curiosity - how many people here also believe that the bug tracker is for help? I am honestly interested, as this could be the source of confusion here - the above is actually the way things SHOULD work - forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, etc should be used for help; the bug tracker should be used for bugs or "actionable items"
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 03:27:16PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Out of curiosity - how many people here also believe that the bug tracker is for help? I am honestly interested, as this could be the source of confusion here - the above is actually the way things SHOULD work - forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, etc should be used for help; the bug tracker should be used for bugs or "actionable items"
Well I think the bug tracker is a good way to keep record of why certain decisions were made in development and packaging. If the discussion on the tracker isn't sufficient for someone to understand the decision, it may be a good idea to make a comment to clarify things. But then again, some people are never satisfied.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:46:19PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote:
Nicolas Bigaouette wrote:
I totally second that. It is really frustrating as a bug reporting user to end the discussion like this. It really looks like a "shut-up and stop annoying us" thing...
I know it did not gave me the motivation to open other bugs.
I don't see why the discussion should be closed when the bug is. As Damjan said, some useful information can still be provided even if the bug is closed.
2009/2/16 Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
Which is why I don't submit bug reports anymore.
Instead of +1'ing this could you provide examples instead?
No not really, as I am done with this and I am not going to argue with anyone about this.
It's just that I came looking for help and got slammed one too many times.
Now I either go the the news groups for help or fix it my self. If I don't get a solution then I skip the package and move on.
Out of curiosity - how many people here also believe that the bug tracker is for help? I am honestly interested, as this could be the source of confusion here - the above is actually the way things SHOULD work - forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, etc should be used for help; the bug tracker should be used for bugs or "actionable items"
I know the bug tracker is for bugs and not help, when I used to file bug reports I did so because some thing didn't work (for example compiling a package under the current arch gcc version). Yes maybe I didn't fully understand the issue. You can look at your favorite package klibc* :), ( klibc-udev to be exact) which I did file. (remember we found a flea in pacman/makepkg using makeworld with the --log flag). Although I did not file a bug report for this here is an example I had opensp that I found a solution for and tried to get my patch applied and the response (The way I saw it maybe not as it was intended) was go adopt the package followed by a piss off. Well the package was in extra I couldn't adopt it and I can not fix it in any way. I the problem still exists with opensp. My intention was to simply get it fixed, all that needed to be done was for someone who has access to update the PKGBUILD and add the patch which I received from comp.os.linux.misc and it will build. I did file a upstream bug report. Also: Had the bug report for the klibc* I filed just be tossed as in this is not a bug, the makeworld --log flea would not have been found. I think that bug reports can be closed too quickly, maybe because the one who closes the report doesn't fully understand why the report was filed ( We are all not good english speakers ). My suggestion would be to create an arch news group where issues using/building etc can be discussed. It could then be searched and one could read the thread and it may/could fix ones issue/problem. It also could promote discussion leading to solutions for bugs/issues/problems as well as one more source of help for less experienced users. -- Tayo'y Mga Pinoy
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
I know the bug tracker is for bugs and not help, when I used to file bug reports I did so because some thing didn't work (for example compiling a package under the current arch gcc version). Yes maybe I didn't fully understand the issue. You can look at your favorite package klibc* :), ( klibc-udev to be exact) which I did file. (remember we found a flea in pacman/makepkg using makeworld with the --log flag).
Although I did not file a bug report for this here is an example
I had opensp that I found a solution for and tried to get my patch applied and the response (The way I saw it maybe not as it was intended) was go adopt the package followed by a piss off. Well the package was in extra I couldn't adopt it and I can not fix it in any way. I the problem still exists with opensp. My intention was to simply get it fixed, all that needed to be done was for someone who has access to update the PKGBUILD and add the patch which I received from comp.os.linux.misc and it will build. I did file a upstream bug report.
No developers are telling anyone to piss off. I'm sure phrakture won't hesitate to hurl a car/bus/jet at anyone who did. If you're getting this impression, it's certainly not at all intended. We're busy, and some of us have a lot of bugs assigned to us. Often when updating a package there might be multiple bug reports to close, so it's quite normal to close without a message - this is not intended as a rude gesture, rather the reality of limited time and energy. Most of us are human (except Phrak) and we screw up sometimes (except Allan). If we do close a bug report incorrectly or misunderstand your issue, that's what the request to re-open option exists for. If you really disagree and think it's worth discussion, send an email right to this list _right here_ (this list is the newsgroup you want) where more people can see it than the handful assigned to the bug report. It's been done before, nobody complained, and will help clarify any decision made. Cheers! James
Damjan Georgievski wrote:
I find it pretty frustrating that once bugs are closed in http://bugs.archlinux.org/ you can no longer add comments. The only option you have is request re-opening of the bug, which, I guess, would then frustrate the maintainer who closed the bug.
Adding comments to already closed bugs makes sense to me, since the *discussion* is almost always not over when it's (too hastily?) closed. Sometimes you want to add comments that strengthens the case for closing the report, which also means the report will not be re-opened in the future. Sometimes you need to supply more information.
It's a BUG TRACKER, not a FORUM. If you really want to keep discussing something further, post it to the mailinglist or the forum. You know, the places that were _made_ for discussion? The right tool for the right job please! Glenn
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:30:47 +0100 RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
Damjan Georgievski wrote:
I find it pretty frustrating that once bugs are closed in http://bugs.archlinux.org/ you can no longer add comments. The only option you have is request re-opening of the bug, which, I guess, would then frustrate the maintainer who closed the bug.
Adding comments to already closed bugs makes sense to me, since the *discussion* is almost always not over when it's (too hastily?) closed. Sometimes you want to add comments that strengthens the case for closing the report, which also means the report will not be re-opened in the future. Sometimes you need to supply more information.
It's a BUG TRACKER, not a FORUM. If you really want to keep discussing something further, post it to the mailinglist or the forum. You know, the places that were _made_ for discussion? The right tool for the right job please!
Glenn
In theory I would agree, but in practice most bugs don't have corresponding threads on the ML/forums. Why would you start a new thread on a different place if you already have a "thread" on the bugtracker? It's simpler, more clear and a bugtracker works just fine for this. I don't really have time to research right now but on first look I couldn't find a setting for this. Dieter
participants (13)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Baho Utot
-
Damjan Georgievski
-
Dan McGee
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Geoffroy Carrier
-
Grigorios Bouzakis
-
James Rayner
-
Loui Chang
-
Nicolas Bigaouette
-
RedShift
-
vlad
-
Xavier