Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20080218/0c7d88f8/attachment.htm below:
<br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> ><br>> > PEP: -1<br>> > tracker: +1<br>><br>> I agree. Then we can set some status/keyword when the subject of a RFE<br>
> is accepted by core developers, saying "if someone proposes a patch,<br>> it has a chance to be reviewed and applied".<br>> It may incite occasional contributors to work on some of these tasks,<br>> confident that their work will not be thrown away in two seconds.<br>
<br>My issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker as they are is that it<br>artificially inflates the open issue count. Python does not have over<br>1,700 open bugs.<br><br>So I have no issue with keeping the RFEs in the tracker, at some point<br>
I do want to change how they are represnted so that they are a<br>separate things from issues representing bugs and patches.<br><br>-Brett</blockquote><div><br>Sure but thats merely a tracker problem. Change your count to bugs not marked as a rfe / feature-request and you've got your real count. Tracker entries for rfes are much better than a languid document.<br>
</div><br></div><br>
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