World: r3wp
[!CureCode] web-based bugtracking tool
older newer | first last |
BrianH 26-May-2009 [400] | That's what I thought block should mean. Let's adopt that meaning for the next round of reprioritization. |
Dockimbel 26-May-2009 [401] | Henrik: "An alternative would be to blank the list when switching mode. That perhaps will lead the user to see that an action needs to be done to display a list that corresponds with the search query." Sorry, couldn't fix that in this release, it's much more complicated to fix efficiently than I expected first. I should maybe try to clean the result list using Javascript...will see that later. |
BrianH 26-May-2009 [402] | I don't mind having the list still there. |
Henrik 26-May-2009 [403] | It's ok. You tried. :-) |
BrianH 26-May-2009 [404] | What is type=Nuts supposed to mean? It's too fun to get rid of, so we should use it :) |
Dockimbel 26-May-2009 [405x3] | Lol. IIRC, it was transfered from AltMe R3 Tracker during the migration process. I don't what was the exact meaning in Tracker. |
<don't know> | |
Color changed for following statuses : problem, waiting, and deferred (to help distinguish "active" from "suspended" tickets). | |
BrianH 26-May-2009 [408x2] | The color is quite close to the dismissed/completed color - I had to see both next to each other to tell them apart. |
It seems to be related to the angle of my monitor. At high angles they are the same, at low angles they are different. | |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [410] | I'll see if I can adjust that a little. |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [411x2] | The history in view/edit ticket mode shows status changes as "=> none 8" for varying numbers, depending on the status. The status field in the edit dropdown above is correct. |
I'm trying to change ticket 820 from an issue to a bug, but I get a server failure. | |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [413] | Did you notice such failure only for that ticket? |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [414x2] | Since you can't delete history, I tend to not make such changes unless they are necessary. |
The failure is consistent though - I've tried multiple times. Changes to other fields worked, as long as the issue-to-bug change wasn't there. | |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [416] | Issues fixed. It was caused by a conflicting library version from another webapp running on the same Cheyenne instance. Should be ok now. |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [417] | Verified fixed. Apparently the failed attempts were partially completed, so the history is a little messy on ticket 820 now :( |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [418x3] | Let me see that... |
Should I cleanup history starting from 27-May-2009 16:02? | |
...but keeping 19:39 and 19:43 ? | |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [421] | Thanks, that would help. Then I can undo the comment change. |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [422x2] | Ok, removing them right now... |
Done. Is it ok for you now? | |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [424x2] | Yup, looks great. |
What do you think of the subject matter of the bug? Do you think it's a good idea? | |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [426] | Is url! part of any-string! ? |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [427x4] | Yes. Any series containing characters only. |
>> any-string! == make typeset! [string! binary! file! email! url! tag! issue!] | |
One of these things is not like the others. The proposal is to remove binary! from that set, then add it back to functions that support it. | |
Functions that support series usually support binary!, but usually not functions that are specific to strings. | |
Dockimbel 27-May-2009 [431] | That makes sense to remove it, but there's the string parsing question raised by Ladislav. Are we going to have 3 different parsing mode in R3 (binary, string, block)? (I wouldn't be shocked by that) |
Maxim 27-May-2009 [432] | I would whole hardedly welcome explicit binary and string parsing differenciation... in fact for some tcp server stuff, I know for a fact that if R3 doesn't have binary-specific parsing, its going to create a BIG hole in rebol's capabilities, or make it very complicated. |
Oldes 27-May-2009 [433x3] | Me too |
Especially with the unicode in strings which would cause problems with binary parsing. | |
For example while parsing binary! and I use [1 skip] I want to skip 1 byte only, not a unicode char which can be on more bytes. | |
Steeve 27-May-2009 [436x2] | did you test that Oldes ? |
i mean, parsing binaries in R3 works well | |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [438] | Parse of binary (and string to some extent) doesn't work well enough on R3 yet. For binaries it's as bad as it is on R2. |
Steeve 27-May-2009 [439x3] | i thinl it's better currently, why do you think it's as bad ? |
it is better currently than in R2, because you can use the same rules to parse a binary or a string of the same content. No need to have different rules, so no need to wast memory using useless conversions with to binary!/string! | |
i hope, it will not be discarded with the full port of unicode strings | |
Maxim 27-May-2009 [442] | in R2 string and binary are parsed exactly the same. |
BrianH 27-May-2009 [443] | (conversation continued in !REBOL3) |
BrianH 29-May-2009 [444] | When I first go in as anonymous, the filter used is the last one I was using (usually "Recent Changes"), but the one displayed in the Filter box is the first one ("Most Recent Reports"). I like the last-filter-used behavior, and wish the Filter box reflected it. |
BrianH 4-Jun-2009 [445] | Ticket #595 has an incorrect comment count in the listings. |
Dockimbel 5-Jun-2009 [446] | I remember having done some comment cleanup on that ticket. I'll set the comment counter to the correct value. |
BrianH 5-Jun-2009 [447] | It's a counter? Interesting - that explains why only one ticket was affected. |
Dockimbel 5-Jun-2009 [448] | The counter is here just for speeding up the main SQL query (saves a costly sub-query). |
BrianH 5-Jun-2009 [449] | Yes it would. It looks like your management utilities need to modify the counter as well :) |
older newer | first last |