From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: More Bug Stuff Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:02:17 -0800 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <873cypn2a2.fsf@tyrell.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <87d6xtzhzv.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <871ye4y6qq.fsf@tyrell.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017374815 19683 127.0.0.1 (29 Mar 2002 04:06:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mvo@zagadka.ping.de, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16qnfD-00057M-00 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:06:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16qneu-0003jI-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:06:36 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16qnd1-0003YI-00 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:04:39 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16qnaj-0001Sv-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:02:17 -0800 Original-To: evan@glug.org Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 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:224 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:224 From: Evan Prodromou Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:52:45 -0600 It's much easier to auto-generate a unique number than a meaningful unique symbolic name. if it's not easier it's more fun to write, no? It makes writing parsers easier. Do you really need the flexibility of using ANY kind of address header? i don't understand you. to me, using ANY instead of some other complicated syntax is the most flexible, for other tools. It makes it much easier to say things like this: [...] I'm a little confused why you say that priority assignment is "mostly arbitrary"[...] probably mvo means this kind of scheme is fine to set up, but not in the bugs database. prioritization is larger in scope than bugs handling and generally prioritization schemes are never universal (among humans). this would be a good time to suggest that render-bugs in the future also handle small writes to the db (rendering it more like "edit-bugs"), such as maintaining a "priority: ((WHO N) ...)" header. Sorry, I mistakenly used the word "task" here, which seems to have confused you. What I should have said was "piece of work." If a release went out with the FSF address misspelled, this would be a low _severity_ bug, but a high _priority_ one. Anyways, OK, the rest looks good. you're overspecifying, dude. c'mon man! first get the core done so we can jump in w/ passing around higher order functions and all that good stuff. separate mechanism and policy and post something elegant. [insert small steps rant.] (sorry, i have been -er- wafting some vapors of late.) thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel