World: r3wp

isolated search field

 means that it's not included when <all> is selected (due to over-complicated 
 SQL code to get accurate results).

Hey, I was just missing a user search field :-)

Those improvements sound good to me. This might be enough to start 
planning to make a REBOL 2 project and migrate the RAMBO tickets 
to it.

CureCode new version 0.9.12 is online. (see changes 4 messages above)


RSS-based notifications were added both at project and at ticket 
level :

- project notifications: ticket added/deleted/moved, comment added/changed/deleted, 
status changed
- ticket notifications: any change


I'll monitor this group in the next days for any issue caused by 
this new release. I also might add a couple new minor features in 
the meantime. Once this release is stabilized, I'll upgrade the source 
archive.

Btw, RSS notifications can be accessed from the RSS icon on the upper-right 
corner of tickets list and tickets details page. Default polling 
delays are provided in the RSS feeds, but if your looking for long-term 
changes on a given ticket, I recommend you to set your RSS reader 
polling delay to 24h for the tickets feed.

Very useful

Kaj: thanks, that was a major feature missing in CC, I'm glad I've 
finally found the time to implement it.

More about the new "move" feature:

- the "Move Ticket" button only appears if there's more than one 
project defined.

- Moving a ticket to another project resets the following fields: 
"version", "fixed in" and "category" (these are project-specific 
fields). Their old values are logged in history if they need to be 
set back.

The RSS feeds seem to work in Google Reader.

I entered an R3 bug about a character in Slovenian text, but CureCode 
also mistreats it:

http://curecode.org/rebol3/ticket.rsp?id=1794&cursor=4

It encodes it as a special HTML entity, but double so that it is 
not shown as the original character

It could be that this happened during Brian's modification. I probably 
reviewed my own entry, although I don't actively remember

It's for sure CC bug as it converts the HTML entity into bug link.

It didn't happen during my mods, it happens when converted from edit 
to view mode every time. And it converts back when you go into edit 
mode (at least visibly).

Right, it's a rendering issue that I've fixed. I'll put it online 
in a few hours.

I just noticed that the ticket RSS link is in a fixed location but 
the ticket itself isn't: it depends on whether the < > navigator 
buttons are there. It doesn't look bad either way, but you might 
consider moving it down a few pixels.

Thanks, good catch!

Direct ticket references like those from the RSS or typed out here 
cause the no-arrow-buttons thing. That makes it easy to check the 
alignment.

About direct ticket references, I'm adding short URLs to reference 
tickets in the form: http://issue.cc/r3/<ticketid>

Nice :)

Do multiple projects on the same server share the same ticket number 
space? I assumed so because it was easy for you to do project moving. 
This would make it possible to do cross-project referencing of related 
tickets in the ticket descriptions and comments :)

Yes, same number spaces for all projects of a single instance (/rebol3 
in this case).

sorry, "space" not "spaces"

Cool, that will work nicely.

Carl said this when I suggested moving the R2 bug tracking from RAMBO 
to a project in CureCode:

In addition, on RAMBO:

1. For presets, I can select the # per page.
2. Preset categories seem more obvious
3. Search is better
4. I like ability to see summary and description in lists

He was also concerned about having a backup of the data, just in 
case. Lots of server failures lately.

Now, the categories thing is project-specific, so that can just be 
migrated over. I'm not sure what he means by the rest.

Well, it's all doable, I just need to find some time to add these 
features (not sure how Rambo's search feature is working).

About server failures, my server is pretty solid (SSD drives, recent 
hw) and full DB backups are done every day by a batch script on a 
remote  machine (my local home server, a Eeebox ;-)).

Part of the reason that I would like to move to CC for R2 is because 
most of the bugs found in R2 are found during the development of 
R3 nowadays. Even if we have to be more stringent about backwards 
compatibility, we still want the cross-referencing, at least for 
the R2 equivalent of bug #666. Plus, I know CC better.

The biggest UI problem I've noticed is the semantic overlap between 
the severity and priority fields. I've been saying that severity 
is for difficulty and priority is for importance, but then there 
are importance settings in the severity list (crash and block). That 
could stand to be a bit cleaner.

#666: "I don't want to change anything or learn anything new. REBOL 
2 is perfect and nothing should ever change." :-))

Works for R2 tickets as well, as a backwards-compatibility argument 
:)

About severity vs priority: you can see "severity" as an issue property 
while "priority" is a processing workflow property.

In other words, "severity" is set by the emitter while "priority' 
is a field in the hands of the developers.

The UI should better separate those 2 categories. "Priority" should 
have go down with other "developer" fields, but it wasn't very good-looking 
when I tried it at the beginning. I was waiting for more fields to 
be added (for better balance) before moving it down.

Even if it means changing a lot of tickets, the difference between 
those should be more clear. Using severity to declare difficuty has 
been useful both to decide which tickets to do when and for negotiating 
(not everything can be fixed, and not everything is really a bug). 
But we haven't really been using the developer priorities, because 
there's too many tickets, and because we have been going with more 
of a work flow system instead of a priority system, except for crash 
and block bugs which get higher precedence if we can. Managing priorities 
has been mostly done on a per-developer basis, with me keeping track 
of the tickets as a whole, and Carl doing the big picture.

I agree with Doc that severity is set by the reporter, and should 
thus not be confused with difficulty of solving for the developers

Reporters basically don't care about difficulty, because if they 
could judge it, they could probably also fix it themselves

Developers shouldn't even care much about difficulty, because everything 
should be doable, or they wouldn't be developers, so priority is 
more important

I'm upgrading Cheyenne version on curecode.org, if you're editing 
something, better save it right now.

Upgrade done. Changes:

o FEAT: Short URLs for tickets direct referencing added.

o FIX: double escaping of HTML entities in description and comments 
removed.

o FIX: vertical spacing of RSS image when navigation buttons are 
not present.

Ticket 1794 (http://issue.cc/r3/1794) now renders special characters 
correctly.

Some things aren't doable because they are incompatible with REBOL 
on a basic semantic or syntactic level. It is not a matter of developer 
ability, and such requests are made more often than you would think.

Everything is set by the reporter at first, often incorrectly. The 
severity field is a mix of data, some of which affects priority but 
most of which only has bearing on difficulty. I'd like to say the 
priority field is more important, but we have been having difficulty 
making it useful to us, and we mostly track priorities separately. 
Perhaps with some tweaks both of the fields could be more useful 
to us.

We do need a field that contains information about the scale/difficulty 
of the problem, and that is what we have been using the severity 
field for in the R3 project. Basically, anything that requires just 
a tweak to help strings or error messages gets text; then there's 
simple tweaks or minor fixes; new datatypes or fundamental changes 
to major functions gets major; requests to changes in basic evaluation 
semantics gets major, or dismissed, depending on the possibility 
of such a change (some are impossible without breaking REBOL completely). 
The other settings (crash and block) are actually severity. We use 
those levels of difficulty to schedule fixes or in some cases defer 
until later.

We don't really have a field that we are using to state the importance 
to the reporter of the bug, but that is obvious from the description 
and comments, and we set the priority field accordingly. I would 
like a better approach than this, so if the description of our practices 
helps in any way then that would be great.

Thanks for the quick fix, Doc ;-)