Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Status label for issues
From: Uli Heilmeier <zeugs () heilmeier eu>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:27:16 +0200
I see your point. We had this status field at Bugzilla and it worked sufficiently well (at least for dissector bugs). At the moment it is very hard to see if someone has already had a look at an issue, if she/he was able to reproduce it, if a sample capture is missing etc. Regarding additional tooling I will have a closer look at triage-ops the next days. Am 27.04.21 um 09:06 schrieb Roland Knall:
I have especially an issue with the new ws-status labels and their transitions. Judging from a company, where we have about 50 developers whose daily bread it is to transition properly in Jira, I cannot see an open-source project with no additional tooling to properly transition between e.g. unconfirmed => confirmed => in-progress. That is my main concern.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: Status label for issues, (continued)
- Re: Status label for issues Graham Bloice (Apr 23)
- Re: Status label for issues Jirka Novak (Apr 24)
- Re: Status label for issues Roland Knall (Apr 26)
- Re: Status label for issues Uli Heilmeier (Apr 26)
- Re: Status label for issues Eugène Adell (Apr 26)
- Re: Status label for issues Roland Knall (Apr 26)
- Re: Status label for issues Uli Heilmeier (Apr 26)
- Re: Status label for issues Guy Harris (Apr 27)
- Re: Status label for issues Uli Heilmeier (Apr 27)
- Re: Status label for issues Roland Knall (Apr 27)
- Re: Status label for issues Uli Heilmeier (Apr 27)
- Re: Status label for issues Roland Knall (Apr 26)
- Re: Status label for issues Uli Heilmeier (Apr 27)