Martin Rubey <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes, I like this proposal equally well. Comments?
Oops, sorry, I don't understand it: it would imply
having 7
additional statuses too. I don't think it's possible to
have
a "variable" status?
The point is being able to filter out all issues that
are
'fixed somewhere.'
Martin
>
> "William Sit" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Dear Martin:
> >
> > May I suggest using a bit vector to notate the
fixes? I propose
> > that the bits of the bit vector be assigned
according to chronological
> > order of axiom branches, so that bit 0 is for Tim's
Axiom, bit 1 for
> > FriCAS and bit 2 for OpenAxiom, etc. So we need only
two status:
> > fixed xxx and fixed proposed xxx for now. The bit
vector is extensible
> > if more flavors come along.
> >
> > Example: "fixed 101" means patches exist and
implemented for
> > OpenAxiom and for Tim's Axiom, each patch according
to the
> > requirements of the flavor.
> >
> > "fixed proposed 010" means a patch exist (proposed)
but not
> > implemented (for whatever reasons) on FriCAS.
> >
> > "fixed 000" means no patch implemented
> >
> > "fixed proposed 000" means no patch proposed
(implies of
> > course "fixed 000").
> >
> > You may forward this to the groups or disregard as
you
> > please.
> >
> > William
> >
> >
> > On 25 Jan 2008 22:11:55 +0100
> > Martin Rubey <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >I have just added a new bug status "fixed
somewhere".
> > >
> > > Please use "fix proposed" and "fixed somewhere"
according
> > > to the following rules:
> > >
> > >> 1) fix proposed
> > >> would be used if a patch is attached, but it
hasn't been
> > >> fixed in one of the systems
> > >> 2) fixed somewhere would be used if the issue is
fixed
> > >> somewhere, regardless whether a patch is included
or
> > >> not.
> > >> ...