Mailing List Archive

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> In particular, i think it's better for things to languish in "deferred"
> than in "pending".

I see we disagree on this point. Deferred means "forgotten", I don't see
how having forgotten issues that aren't Wontfix'ed helps :-S

> and do not think
> an artificial 1-month deadline is useful in many cases.

The 1 month deadline is only applicable for the specific meaning Andreas
and I are using it for: issues that need to be rejected in a month's
time if no further information is forthcoming from the reporter...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-Coders mailing list
Zope-Coders@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-coders

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I made a quick workflow diagram, and quickly realized that "deferred"
> actually ends up as a "need more information" state. It is not pending
> rejection, but pending decision in that case. Of course, that is what
> the pending state is for...

Yeah, but it's REALLY handy to have a state that indicates more
information has been requested, and no further action need be taken
until that information arrives. Furthermore, if that information doesn't
arrive within a set period of time, the issue is rejected. "Pending
Deletion" works for me, "Deferred" also works for me, was available and
didn't seem to be helping in its current use...

> somebody has noticed. So I suggest a "submitted" state, as default state
> for new issues, and that we change it to "pending" if we need more info,

I agree with the reasons, btu see my KISS comment earlier w.r.t. number
of states...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-Coders mailing list
Zope-Coders@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-coders

Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Ken Manheimer wrote at 2004-7-30 11:50 -0400:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Chris Withers wrote:
>>...
>>My intent for the states is different from what you suggested, in some
>>cases significantly.
>
> I like your intents!

Can you explain what bits specifically?

This comment currently doesn't aid anything ;-)

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-Coders mailing list
Zope-Coders@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-coders

Chris Withers wrote:
> Yeah, but it's REALLY handy to have a state that indicates more
> information has been requested, and no further action need be taken
> until that information arrives. Furthermore, if that information doesn't
> arrive within a set period of time, the issue is rejected. "Pending
> Deletion" works for me, "Deferred" also works for me, was available and
> didn't seem to be helping in its current use...

Yup. Mantis calls it "feedback", I think. The state is definitely handy.

>> somebody has noticed. So I suggest a "submitted" state, as default
>> state for new issues, and that we change it to "pending" if we need
>> more info,
>
>
> I agree with the reasons, btu see my KISS comment earlier w.r.t. number
> of states...

Yeah, I don't think it's a big issue. It works as it is.
_______________________________________________
Zope-Coders mailing list
Zope-Coders@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-coders

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Chris Withers wrote:

> Dieter Maurer wrote:
> > Ken Manheimer wrote at 2004-7-30 11:50 -0400:
> >
> > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Chris Withers wrote:
> > > ...
> > > My intent for the states is different from what you suggested, in some
> > > cases significantly.
> >
> > I like your intents!
>
> Can you explain what bits specifically?
>
> This comment currently doesn't aid anything ;-)

I found it helpful to know that i was not the only one who interpreted the
states significantly differently than what was described by your
CollectorStatuses. (Comments from others reinforced that, also.) That
feedback confirmed for me that i was **not**, as you suggested, chris,
muddying the waters, but that the waters were already muddy, and required
attention, not just arbitrary settling.

Ken
klm@zope.com
_______________________________________________
Zope-Coders mailing list
Zope-Coders@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-coders

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> I found it helpful to know that i was not the only one who interpreted the
> states significantly differently than what was described by your
> CollectorStatuses. (Comments from others reinforced that, also.) That
> feedback confirmed for me that i was **not**, as you suggested, chris,
> muddying the waters, but that the waters were already muddy, and required
> attention, not just arbitrary settling.

However, arbitrary settling tends to sort things out more quickly and
mean we can all get on with fixing bugs rather than arguing about how to
fix bugs.

But since we're not prepared to do that, I guess we have to go throug
hthe whole painful process bit by bit...

*sigh*

Chris - and yes I'm just as guilty as the rest :-/

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope-Coders mailing list
Zope-Coders@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-coders