Re: [Mingw-users] SF tracker tickets and email

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 21/01/13 16:12, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> I want to apologize for your receipt of email for old closed tickets.
>
> Okay; I can live with it, provided the current 40..50 per diem volume
> isn't sustained indefinitely.  However, I have noted one consequent
> issue: it appears that comments posted to the new tracker are being
> copied to MinGW-Notify, with "From:" header identifying the original
> poster, whence they are rejected, (and a rejection notification is sent
> to said poster).
>

Oh, hell, WTF; this is just wrong.  I wondered why I wasn't receiving
any mingw-notify mail.

> The old tracker didn't work like this.  Messages were copied to
> MinGW-Notify, but the original poster's address was replaced in the
> "From:" header, by a "noreply@sf..." address, which MinGW-Notify is
> configured to accept.  We'll need to follow up on this issue; for the
> time being, I've changed the MinGW-Notify options to quietly discard
> incoming messages from unapproved poster's, (which means everybody
> except "noreply@sf...").  In its present configuration, MinGW-Notify
> will no longer receive tracker postings, so it has become effectively
> defunct.
>

I'll have to stop the send to mingw-notify until this is fixed or open
mingw-notify up to spam.  Which do you prefer?

>> I'm cleaning up after having upgraded from the old SF UI to their new
>> Allura UI and the result was not to my liking.  I still have about 300
>> issues in the Bugs tracker for the initial round and then I'll review
>> them once again before moving on to the other trackers.
>
> I've been reviewing them, as they come in, seeing it as an opportunity
> for a refresher on possibly forgotten issues.  One thing puzzles me: the
> number of issues which are classified as "Known Bugs", where many,
> (possibly the majority), are actually PEBKAC, and not bugs at all.

I've noticed a comment or two from you.  Yes, cleaning up this data is
time consuming.  I'm trying to reduce the number of "Groups" a.k.a.
"Milestones" as well as do away with the likes of closed-wont-fixed,
closed-invalid, etc and making them closed with a created Resolution
field with "wont-fix, invalid, etc".  Why SF didn't do that to begin
with is unbeknownst to me.

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d