You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> on 2003/03/18 21:14:54 UTC
Updating bug reports (was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 18094] - validate method on ValidatorForm should use mapping.getName as key to validator)
"Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org> wrote in message
news:3E7760DF.9070006@apache.org...
> I've been tagging the "resolved laters" for the "unknown" build and then
> indicating a milestone.
The problem with this is that we don't know what version it was reported
against, and therefore don't know what version to attempt to reproduce the
problem with. If someone goes to try to reproduce it with the latest code
base, and it doesn't happen, then we don't know if that's because the code
changed since the version it was reported against, or whether there's some
other factor involved that needs to be investigated.
Knowing what version the problem was reported against is important, and I
don't agree with zapping it out just so that we don't have to reopen LATER
bugs. If we're going to continue to do this, then we should be going back
and reinstating the original value later. That being the case, we might as
well use LATER for what it's meant for, and leave Version for what it's
meant for.
And yes, I know that I can look at the Bug Activity to see the original
version, but unless I'm mistaken, there's no way to run a report against
past values of a field.
--
Martin Cooper
>
> This gets them off the list of things we need to handle for the current
> iteration, but does not force us to go through the red tape of
> "reopening it" later.
>
> -T.
>
>
> bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
> > RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
> > <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18094>.
> > ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
> > INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
> >
> > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18094
> >
> > validate method on ValidatorForm should use mapping.getName as key to
validator
> >
> > dgraham@apache.org changed:
> >
> > What |Removed |Added
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Status|NEW |RESOLVED
> > Resolution| |LATER
> >
>
>
> --
> Ted Husted,
> Struts in Action <http://husted.com/struts/book.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Updating bug reports (was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 18094] -
validate method on ValidatorForm should use mapping.getName as key to validator)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
This is mainly for enhancement requests, not outstanding problems we can
fix now with a submitted patch.
When there is a patch that we could use later, I am noting the version
referenced in the comments field and adding the patch keyword.
-T.
Martin Cooper wrote:
> "Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org> wrote in message
> news:3E7760DF.9070006@apache.org...
>
>>I've been tagging the "resolved laters" for the "unknown" build and then
>>indicating a milestone.
>
>
> The problem with this is that we don't know what version it was reported
> against, and therefore don't know what version to attempt to reproduce the
> problem with. If someone goes to try to reproduce it with the latest code
> base, and it doesn't happen, then we don't know if that's because the code
> changed since the version it was reported against, or whether there's some
> other factor involved that needs to be investigated.
>
> Knowing what version the problem was reported against is important, and I
> don't agree with zapping it out just so that we don't have to reopen LATER
> bugs. If we're going to continue to do this, then we should be going back
> and reinstating the original value later. That being the case, we might as
> well use LATER for what it's meant for, and leave Version for what it's
> meant for.
>
> And yes, I know that I can look at the Bug Activity to see the original
> version, but unless I'm mistaken, there's no way to run a report against
> past values of a field.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
>
>>This gets them off the list of things we need to handle for the current
>>iteration, but does not force us to go through the red tape of
>>"reopening it" later.
>>
>>-T.
>>
>>
>>bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>>DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
>>>RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
>>><http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18094>.
>>>ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
>>>INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
>>>
>>>http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18094
>>>
>>>validate method on ValidatorForm should use mapping.getName as key to
>>
> validator
>
>>>dgraham@apache.org changed:
>>>
>>> What |Removed |Added
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>>> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
>>> Resolution| |LATER
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ted Husted,
>>Struts in Action <http://husted.com/struts/book.html>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Ted Husted,
Struts in Action <http://husted.com/struts/book.html>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: struts-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: struts-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org