ns_func_cleanup branch, notes
wknight8111 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 4 14:02:53 UTC 2010
Because trunk seems to be having some hiccups, I'll hold off on this
branch merge until after th 2.5 release (and, maybe, until after
Rakudo * since patches to Rakudo will be necessary to rename
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> All the tickets were moved by kjs from RT to Trac. Back in RT, it
> looks like the people who opened the tickets only did so in response
> to the XXX and TODO notes in the code. That is, the people who opened
> the original RT tickets didn't know what the tickets were about
> I closed all of them except #1223. That one looks like a legitimate
> bug and if I can get together a test case I will fix it.
> --Andrew Whitworth
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 07:09:15PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
>>> >Several other tickets are referenced in TODO notes in this file, some
>>> >of which are very cryptic. I would like to get some eyes on TT #1219,
>>> >#1220, #1221, #1222, #1223, #1224, and #1225. I'll fix any and all of
>>> >these tickets if I can get some clarification on what is needed. If
>>> >these tickets turn out to be bogus (and some are so old, I don't doubt
>>> >that they will), we can close them.
>>> I would propose a simple, two-part rule of thumb: If you,
>>> whiteknight, don't understand the point of the ticket, and if no one
>>> else speaks up for it in 24 hours, then, delete the offending
>>> comment and reject the ticket.
>> +1, with a possible modification: If the originator of the ticket
>> (or one of its comments) is a currently active contributor to Parrot,
>> then maybe wait a bit longer than 24 hours before rejecting the
>> ticket (or perhaps assign the ticket to that person, or otherwise
>> check with the contributor before closing it).
More information about the parrot-dev