On 05/02/13 14:06, Paul Franklin wrote:
> Note that this is only going to you, not the list.
> On 2/5/13, doug <dougrb@...> wrote:
>> On 05/02/13 12:18, Tim Lyons wrote:
>>> Tim Lyons wrote
>>>> It is a fault in the recent changes to alive - Doug B, can you check
>>>> the change is the right one - it seems to be a simple problem.
> I am guessing that the "Doug B" Tim had in mind was the
> developer Doug Blank -- but I'm only guessing.
>>> and gramps40 rev 21300
>> Thanks Tim.
>> Can you point me to the patch?
> Tim will probably answer this one too, but I'm guessing
> that when he referred to "gramps40 rev21300" as being the
> fix, that it is what you call the patch. At least for gramps40.
> You can always go to the sourceforge web site (for gramps,
> sourceforge.net/p/gramps/code) and "go down" to the file you
> want then download it. Or click on revision numbers to see what
> files changed, and the "diff" link to see the differences.
> To answer your original question, I'd say the bug tracker
> is the appropriate place. Then if it (later) seems to be ignored
> you can mention it on gramps-devel ("I filed bug so-and-so
> on such-and-such and I wonder if anybody has looked at it?").
> Let me also mention that on the bug tracker, if you put an
> octothorpe/numbersign/poundsign character -- # -- ahead of
> some bug number, the bug tracker software will turn it into
> a link to that bug report. That is, "6378" is just text but "#6378"
> (entered by you) will turn into a link to bug 6378.
> I also think the "target version" matters, so I'd suggest you fill
> in 4.0.0 automatically (for alphaN bugs that is). I am guessing
> but I think that puts it on"the roadmap" for that release -- a list
> of pending bugs. A developer can always change that number,
> if you have guessed wrong or they disagree.
> Thank you very much for being willing to help gramps test
> the new version. The gramps community appreciates the help.
You're very welcome; and thanks, that's extremely helpful.