Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Tony Hoyle wrote: > Oliver Giesen wrote: > > displayed in the search results (furthermore if you filter by > > "Affected" you couldn't sort by "Fixed in" without also setting a > > filter on "Status") and you couldn't just search for "affects > > ?? Not sure I understand that.. can you explain? Well, it was really just the result of something I tried in order to get around the result columns limitation. When you view an item you could click the "Affected" value and get a list (with all columns!) that contains all tickets with the same "affected" value. To get a slightly more meaningful result I tried to sort that list by the "Fixed" column but when you click on the column header, the list is also at the same time filtered to only show Open tickets instead of all like before. I tried manipulating the URL myself but there appears to be no value for status that would show all items and simply omitting it will default to only open items... > > 2.5.01.1976" as the tickets contain no information about when (i.e. > > in what release) the issue started to appear (or rather: against > > which release it was first reported). > > It's often difficult to nail down - bugs are sometimes reported > months after they get into the code. It's best to assume anything > listed as fixed after a particular revision is probably in the older > revisions. Though many issues might only have been introduced in later releases, especially as time passes on. But yes, I'm fully aware of the dilemma here. More fields in the ticket record might help though... > > That's why I'm really eager to have a 2.5.01.x release with a > > managable number of known issues until then as that's what I will > > be stuck with as it is... > > Looking at the list myself it's larger than I thought. It might be > worth putting out a new release just to catch up in that case, maybe > with some new stuff disabled (I'm thinking mainly of the activescript > stuff which is basically untested). I'd really appreciate that. > > Fair enough, I'll let you know if I should get round to verifying > > some of these. Pretty much depends on the quality/clarity of the > > ticket descriptions though... e.g. I wouldn't know how to verify an > > issue described to happen "under some conditions"... > > > Hopefully there aren't too many of those... I try to be specific but > sometimes the entries get written when I'm a bit tired :) I don't think you'll find too many developers out there who could honestly claim not to be guilty of this as well. ;) Cheers, -- Oliver ---- ------------------ JID: ogiesen at jabber.org ICQ: 18777742 (http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)