On 9/26/2010 7:43 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Yep, hence why I think the basic "bug, feature, other" split may be a > good way to go. It's a quick and easy decision most of the time > (including a clear choice for "I don't know if this is a bug or not"), > and makes a meaningful procedural distinction (bugs are usually > backported, new features are not, and other changes may be backported > depending on the details). +1 on 3 categories. The categories other than the main two are used so seldom as to make the differentiation pretty useless. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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