 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Folks,
I've set up a bug tracker at http://bugs.povray.org/. This allows bugs to
be lodged by any registered user, plus allows voting on bugs (in terms of
importance for fix). It would help us a lot if this tracker was used
(properly) to keep all outstanding bugs and unimplemented features listed
in a coherent manner.
I'm also looking for an experienced tester to volunteer to vet submitted
bugs and assign status to them, plus go through the existing bugs listed
here in the newsgroup, determine if they still apply, and enter them to the
tracker if they aren't already there.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoo povrayorg> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've set up a bug tracker at http://bugs.povray.org/. This allows bugs to
> be lodged by any registered user, plus allows voting on bugs (in terms of
> importance for fix). It would help us a lot if this tracker was used
> (properly) to keep all outstanding bugs and unimplemented features listed
> in a coherent manner.
This is a great idea, Chris (and Clipka); thanks for setting it up.
For several months, I've been mulling over suggesting a similar list--but
thought that I might...offend...the POV team by doing so. (By publically airing
POV-Ray's 'dirty laundry' all at once, so to speak.) Glad to see that my
feelings were unfounded. I think this will actually help track down some bugs,
by collecting them into an easily-cross-referenced list; some bugs may turn out
to have a common cause.
One question: Is it OK to list *any* bugs that we come across (in versions 3.6
or later, of course) regardless of whether they have been posted before?
Because some 'bug reports' may have been mentioned only in various newsgroup
threads, as discussions, rather than under the official 'bug reports' thread.
Some of which may have escaped attention (although some may have already been
fixed.) It would be great (and useful, IMO) to gather them all together under
your new listing. Then you (and Clipka, etc.) can eliminate the ones that are
redundant.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Folks,
>
> I've set up a bug tracker at http://bugs.povray.org/. This allows bugs to
> be lodged by any registered user, plus allows voting on bugs (in terms of
> importance for fix). It would help us a lot if this tracker was used
> (properly) to keep all outstanding bugs and unimplemented features listed
> in a coherent manner.
>
> I'm also looking for an experienced tester to volunteer to vet submitted
> bugs and assign status to them, plus go through the existing bugs listed
> here in the newsgroup, determine if they still apply, and enter them to
> the
> tracker if they aren't already there.
>
> -- Chris
Excellent idea!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> One question: Is it OK to list *any* bugs that we come across (in versions 3.6
> or later, of course) regardless of whether they have been posted before?
> Because some 'bug reports' may have been mentioned only in various newsgroup
> threads, as discussions, rather than under the official 'bug reports' thread.
> Some of which may have escaped attention (although some may have already been
> fixed.) It would be great (and useful, IMO) to gather them all together under
> your new listing. Then you (and Clipka, etc.) can eliminate the ones that are
> redundant.
I guess it would be prudent to enter those "old" bugs in pretty much the same
way that "fresh" ones should be entered:
- Make a reasonable effort to check whether the bug is already listed in the
tracker tool (i.e. an "officially known" bug, so to speak).
- If it does not seem to be listed yet, enter it.
- If it is listed already, check whether "your" bug report contains additional
information; if so, add that to the existing bug description.
An occasional duplicate bug report won't really hurt of course, but should
remain an exception, so please do make some (reasonable) effort to avoid them in
the first place (especially since you never know who else might have skimmed the
very same newsgroup posts for bug reports already).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth wrote:
> One question: Is it OK to list *any* bugs that we come across (in versions 3.6
> or later, of course) regardless of whether they have been posted before?
Yes, please do so. I'd like the tracker to become the definitive reference
for a bug, so we don't need to go anywhere else to review bugs and suchlike
(other than following links in the bugreports).
NB the tracker accepts markup in docuwiki syntax, with internal references
(e.g. [[Topic Name]]) resolving to the POV wiki site.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
NB I didn't mention, but it's also possible to add comments to existing
bugs, in case someone other than the submitter wishes to provide additional
information.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
