On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:07:59 +0200 > Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote: >> How about revamping the type/versions fields? >> >> Issue type >> () Feature request (blocked by moratorium: () yes () no) >> () Bug (found in: [] 2.7 [] 3.1 [] py3k) >> () Security bug (found in: [] 2.5 [] 2.6 [] 2.7 [] 3.1 [] py3k) >> >> I’m getting tired of explaining the meaning of the versions field again >> and again, let’s put this information directly under the eyes of the bug >> reporter. > > But we also have "performance", "crash", "resource usage"... Are we > suggesting we devise a separate list box for each of these issue types? I must admit, I've never actually found much use for those additional options. If I'm flagging a bug I'll nearly always mark it "behaviour", otherwise I'll mark the issue "feature request". The characterisation of "what *kind* of bug is it?" is something that can usually be left until later in the process. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4