From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Tool version in HACKING Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:42 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87n0wbwq0x.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <87adscre31.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <200204091928.MAA18069@onyx.he.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018451367 29747 127.0.0.1 (10 Apr 2002 15:09:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ghouston@arglist.com, mvo@zagadka.ping.de, guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16vJiw-0007jd-00 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:09:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16vJib-0001Mb-00; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:09:05 -0400 Original-Received: from dsl-209-87-109-2.constant.com ([209.87.109.2] helo=defaultvalue.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16vJhU-0001H2-00 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:07:56 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F333176F; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:50 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E51CDFA8; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:07:42 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: ttn@glug.org In-Reply-To: (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:29:52 -0700") Original-Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:349 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:349 Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > btw, in fixing this bug we come to the process question of: how do bugs > fit into the TODO list? one obvious answer is "don't use TODO list, bug > fixing (for those deemed needing it) is best managed separately". this > is a not wholistic view however; bug fixing takes time which directly > affects what can be done on TODO. fundamentally, bug fixing is a (we > hope) non-repetitive action, something to do when the time is right. > (and if the particular fix is congruent w/ long term design, the fix > could be called one-shot.) > > so i think it would be useful to consider ways to include bugs in the > TODO list. what does everyone think about this protocol: I'm not sure I follow. I can see why we might want to have references to bugs from the TODO list; are you arguing for more than that? (I don't think I adequately grokked your suggestion). Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel