On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:13:01 -0500 Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote: > 2010/8/2 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote: > >> I'm only referring to the infrastructure when I say "the current > >> setup." I don't think repeatedly tweaking the tracker is likely to > >> close more issues. > > > > But tweaking the tracker to improve the way we *interact* with > > potential contributors may get more developers in the long run, as > > well as closing more issues. Currently, if a bug doesn't get responded > > to immediately by people monitoring the bugs list, then there's no > > easy way to go back and query "hey, are there any bugs nobody has even > > looked at yet?". All this discussion is about is acknowledging that > > that is something we should try to keep under control by listing them > > in the weekly summary and by making them easy to look up. > > Well, I just feel like we keep changing things to little result, > creating an organic mess of fields and statuses. Adding more queries > is fine, but let's not bow to the temptation to add more fields. FWIW, I completely agree with Benjamin. Regards Antoine.
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