There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
needed before we are ready for 1.0:

- pending peeves
- various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
- various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
1.0 is around the corner
- most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.

However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.

We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.

Come on - let's get nominating!

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

> There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is needed before we are ready for 1.0:
> 
> - pending peeves
> - various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
> - various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
> 1.0 is around the corner
> - most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.
> 
> However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.
> 
> We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.
> 
> Come on - let's get nominating!
> 
> Stewart.
> 

It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a d1.0blocker. I just tried it and it failed for me.

Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
>> There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
>> needed before we are ready for 1.0:
>>
>> - pending peeves
>> - various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
>> - various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
>> 1.0 is around the corner
>> - most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.
>>
>> However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
>> the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
>> nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.
>>
>> We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
>> existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
>> them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
>> need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
>> the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
>> the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.
>>
>> Come on - let's get nominating!
>>
>> Stewart.
>>
> 
> It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a d1.0blocker.
> I just tried it and it failed for me.
> 

Likewise.

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright

Kyle Furlong wrote:
> Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>>> There have been a number of independent attempts to round up what is
>>> needed before we are ready for 1.0:
>>>
>>> - pending peeves
>>> - various posts on the 'groups giving opinions on the criteria
>>> - various posts on the 'groups criticising the amount of pretence that
>>> 1.0 is around the corner
>>> - most recently, the d1.0blocker flag in Bugzilla.
>>>
>>> However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
>>> the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
>>> nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.
>>>
>>> We need more people to nominate 1.0 blockers - whether by nominating
>>> existing issues filed in Bugzilla or by filing new issues and nominating
>>> them.  Complier bugs that really need fixing, Phobos bugs that really
>>> need fixing, corners of the spec waiting to be implemented, errors in
>>> the spec, ambiguities in the spec, inconsistencies in the spec, bits of
>>> the spec that that don't make sense, whatever else you can think of.
>>>
>>> Come on - let's get nominating!
>>>
>>> Stewart.
>>>
>>
>> It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a d1.0blocker.
>> I just tried it and it failed for me.
>>
> 
> Likewise.

http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/2006-July/006681.html

Are you trying to set the flag, or request it?

Brad Roberts wrote:

> Kyle Furlong wrote:
>> Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
>>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> It looks like a special permission is needed to mark a bug as a
>>> d1.0blocker.
>>> I just tried it and it failed for me.
>>>
>> 
>> Likewise.
> 
> http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/2006-July/006681.html
> 
> Are you trying to set the flag, or request it?

Ah, I now tried setting it to '?' and it worked. Thanks.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
<snip>
> However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
> the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
> nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.

Now two other people have nominated d1.0blockers.  Each of you has addressed the request to yourself.  What's the point of this?

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> <snip>
>> However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.
> 
> Now two other people have nominated d1.0blockers.  Each of you has addressed the request to yourself.  What's the point of this?

What is the point of this field? Shouldn't one hardcoded addres be allright? From where I should know who to addres it? Should it be you/Walter/anybody else? Sorry - I've just didn't get what is this field about and after little thinking I've just entered my email because I was forced to.

Dawid Ciężarkiewicz wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> However, it seems that nobody else, not even Walter, has caught on to
>>> the fact that we have d1.0blocker.  So far, I'm the only one who's
>>> nominated anything for d1.0blocker status.
>> Now two other people have nominated d1.0blockers.  Each of you has
>> addressed the request to yourself.  What's the point of this?
> 
> What is the point of this field? Shouldn't one hardcoded addres be allright?
>>From where I should know who to addres it? Should it be you/Walter/anybody
> else? Sorry - I've just didn't get what is this field about and after
> little thinking I've just entered my email because I was forced to.

I've edited the flag to hopefully change this behavior.  The docs weren't terribly clear on what a few of the settings really meant.  It should no longer ask for an email address.

Walter has always been setup as a cc'ed person for every d1.0blocker flag request, so no worries there.

Anyone can search for all bugs with the flag by clicking on the 'My Requests' link in the footer and then clearing the two email address fields.

As with anything new, bugzilla is a bit of a learning experience.

Later,
Brad