www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - d1.0blocker - anyone at home?

reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
needed before we are ready for 1.0:

- pending peeves
- various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
- various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
1.0 is around the corner
- most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.

However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.

We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.

Come on - let's get nominating!

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Sep 02 2006
next sibling parent reply Juan Jose Comellas <jcomellas gmail.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
 needed before we are ready for 1.0:
 
 - pending peeves
 - various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
 - various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
 1.0 is around the corner
 - most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.
 
 However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
 the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
 nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.
 
 We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
 existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
 them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
 need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
 the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
 the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.
 
 Come on - let's get nominating!
 
 Stewart.
 


It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a d1.0blocker.
I just tried it and it failed for me.
Sep 03 2006
parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Juan Jose Comellas wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 

 There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
 needed before we are ready for 1.0:

 - pending peeves
 - various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
 - various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
 1.0 is around the corner
 - most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.

 However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
 the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
 nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.

 We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
 existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
 them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
 need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
 the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
 the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.

 Come on - let's get nominating!

 Stewart.


 
 It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a d1.0blocker.
 I just tried it and it failed for me.
 


Likewise.

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright
Sep 03 2006
parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Juan Jose Comellas wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:


 There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
 needed before we are ready for 1.0:

 - pending peeves
 - various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
 - various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
 1.0 is around the corner
 - most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.

 However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
 the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
 nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.

 We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
 existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
 them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
 need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
 the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
 the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.

 Come on - let's get nominating!

 Stewart.


 It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a 
 d1.0blocker.
 I just tried it and it failed for me.


 
 Likewise.


http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/2006-July/006681.html

Are you trying to set the flag, or request it?
Sep 03 2006
parent Juan Jose Comellas <jcomellas gmail.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:


 Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Juan Jose Comellas wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:






[...]

 It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a
 d1.0blocker.
 I just tried it and it failed for me.


 
 Likewise.


 
 http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/2006-July/006681.html
 
 Are you trying to set the flag, or request it?


Ah, I now tried setting it to '?' and it worked. Thanks.
Sep 03 2006
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
<snip>

 However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
 the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
 nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.


Now two other people have nominated d1.0blockers.  Each of you has 
addressed the request to yourself.  What's the point of this?

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Sep 08 2006
parent reply Dawid =?UTF-8?B?Q2nEmcW8YXJraWV3aWN6?= <dawid.ciezarkiewicz gmail.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 <snip>

 However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
 the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
 nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.


 
 Now two other people have nominated d1.0blockers.  Each of you has
 addressed the request to yourself.  What's the point of this?


What is the point of this field? Shouldn't one hardcoded addres be allright?
From where I should know who to addres it? Should it be you/Walter/anybody
else? Sorry - I've just didn't get what is this field about and after
little thinking I've just entered my email because I was forced to.
Sep 09 2006
parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
Dawid Ciężarkiewicz wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 

 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 <snip>

 However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
 the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
 nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.


 Now two other people have nominated d1.0blockers.  Each of you has
 addressed the request to yourself.  What's the point of this?


 
 What is the point of this field? Shouldn't one hardcoded addres be allright?

From where I should know who to addres it? Should it be you/Walter/anybody


 else? Sorry - I've just didn't get what is this field about and after
 little thinking I've just entered my email because I was forced to.


I've edited the flag to hopefully change this behavior.  The docs 
weren't terribly clear on what a few of the settings really meant.  It 
should no longer ask for an email address.

Walter has always been setup as a cc'ed person for every d1.0blocker 
flag request, so no worries there.

Anyone can search for all bugs with the flag by clicking on the 'My 
Requests' link in the footer and then clearing the two email address fields.

As with anything new, bugzilla is a bit of a learning experience.

Later,
Brad
Sep 09 2006