This might be nitpicking, but I believe aesthetics are important too: consider removing the three decimal digits present in the bug count chart of http://dlang.org/bugstats.php . After all, there are no fractional bug reports. (I would do it myself if I had access to the source code, but I imagine puremagic.com's code is not available).

On 11/27/13 7:30 PM, "Luís Marques" <luis@luismarques.eu>" wrote:
> This might be nitpicking, but I believe aesthetics are important too:
> consider removing the three decimal digits present in the bug count
> chart of http://dlang.org/bugstats.php . After all, there are no
> fractional bug reports. (I would do it myself if I had access to the
> source code, but I imagine puremagic.com's code is not available).

Destroy:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/bugstats.php.dd


Andrei

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 04:04:13 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
> Destroy:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/bugstats.php.dd

That's the source for <http://dlang.org/bugstats.php>, right?
But what we need is the source that generates/updates
<https://d.puremagic.com/issues/graphs/D_NEW_ASSIGNED_REOPENED_RESOLVED.png>,
which is then included in <http://dlang.org/bugstats.php> (and I
suppose that the source for puremagic.com is not included in the
dlang.org repo, right?).

On 11/27/13 8:37 PM, "Luís.Marques" <luis@luismarques.eu>" wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 04:04:13 UTC, Andrei
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Destroy:
>>
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/bugstats.php.dd
>
> That's the source for <http://dlang.org/bugstats.php>, right?
> But what we need is the source that generates/updates
> <https://d.puremagic.com/issues/graphs/D_NEW_ASSIGNED_REOPENED_RESOLVED.png>,
> which is then included in <http://dlang.org/bugstats.php> (and I
> suppose that the source for puremagic.com is not included in the
> dlang.org repo, right?).

It's a pretty vanilla bugzilla installation.  Fix it there.  It might well have already been fixed given that the version we're running is pretty ancient.  I've been wanting to find the time to upgrade for a while, just hasn't gotten to the top of my todo list.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 05:33:23 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> It's a pretty vanilla bugzilla installation.  Fix it there.  It might well have already been fixed given that the version we're running is pretty ancient.  I've been wanting to find the time to upgrade for a while, just hasn't gotten to the top of my todo list.

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean, "fix it there"? I understand you are saying that d.puremagic.com is a bugzilla deployment, but where are the sources to be changed for that site?

On 11/27/13 9:38 PM, "Luís.Marques" <luis@luismarques.eu>" wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 05:33:23 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> It's a pretty vanilla bugzilla installation.  Fix it there.  It might well have already been fixed
>> given that the version we're running is pretty ancient.  I've been wanting to find the time to
>> upgrade for a while, just hasn't gotten to the top of my todo list.
>
> I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean, "fix it there"? I understand you are saying that
> d.puremagic.com is a bugzilla deployment, but where are the sources to be changed for that site?

I mean, don't try to change it in the installed copy.  Get it changed in the upstream main bugzilla source base after which we'll get it through a natural upgrade cycle.