towards Thunderbird 1.0 ...
- sensemann
- Posts: 755
- Joined: February 6th, 2003, 12:29 pm
- Location: Dresden, Germany
- Contact:
towards Thunderbird 1.0 ...
There have been several people asking me to make a graph like I do for Firefox... here it is.
edit: fixed the dates.
edit: fixed the dates.
Last edited by sensemann on September 20th, 2004, 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: August 10th, 2004, 7:28 am
- Contact:
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 0
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm
- zachariah
- Posts: 586
- Joined: September 30th, 2003, 12:44 pm
- Location: Earth
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: January 19th, 2004, 11:44 am
- Location: Norwich, CT, USA
- Contact:
- fishbert
- Posts: 941
- Joined: November 29th, 2002, 12:02 am
My on-topic post was moved along with the off-topic ones, so here it is again (retaining the "salty language" edits).Neil Parks wrote:Subsequent off-topic posts have been moved to Locked Posts.
fishbert wrote:holy {bleep}! it's something resembling the crap I see every week at work!
what the hell?! are we to think that the mozilla projects are trying to be.... professional?! Eh?
Salty language edited by moderator Neil
- Nitin
- Moderator
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: February 27th, 2003, 9:38 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
What's ontopic about your post?
If you're not using Firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
Join the MZ folding@home team.
Join the MZ folding@home team.
- fishbert
- Posts: 941
- Joined: November 29th, 2002, 12:02 am
-
- Posts: 1328
- Joined: September 28th, 2003, 8:58 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: August 28th, 2003, 6:09 pm
- Location: Springfield, Missouri
sulla wrote:Hi All!
If somebody posts a "shit" here, why on earth replace it by "{bleep}"?
Where the hell are we?
sulla for free speach!
Where are we?? We're in a PUBLIC forum, not a private discussion group.
And in a public forum, you should have enough class not to use gratuitous
profanity. If the moderators choose to "bleep" out profanity because some
people are offended, then what's the problem with that?
Gary Speer
- fishbert
- Posts: 941
- Joined: November 29th, 2002, 12:02 am
Though this is discussion is quite off-topic (we already had one sub-thread get locked in the attic, people)...
I'd hardly call one minor swear word as "gratuitous," and you should probably have enough class not to 'should' all over people. =)
Even if there is no reason, it's still their discretion. Maybe you post "I like flowers," but a moderator decides to censor it because they do not like flowers. Nothing explicitly wrong with that. (though I disagree with it, respect for the moderator's decision is why I left the "salty language" censor in my re-post.)
Over-use of censorship, though, may turn off the userbase and be counter-productive. I left the forums at www.ocworkbench.com a year or two ago because the forum moderators were censoring things as silly as the names of other users which they had banned (and they had banned some legitimately helpful and perfectly civil users -- not people who had it coming). Forum censorship can be a tricky balance for moderators sometimes.
Does the house offer courtesy ties? I seem to have left mine at home...gaspeer wrote:... in a public forum, you should have enough class not to use gratuitous profanity.
I'd hardly call one minor swear word as "gratuitous," and you should probably have enough class not to 'should' all over people. =)
Absolutely nothing.gaspeer wrote:If the moderators choose to "bleep" out profanity because some people are offended, then what's the problem with that?
Even if there is no reason, it's still their discretion. Maybe you post "I like flowers," but a moderator decides to censor it because they do not like flowers. Nothing explicitly wrong with that. (though I disagree with it, respect for the moderator's decision is why I left the "salty language" censor in my re-post.)
Over-use of censorship, though, may turn off the userbase and be counter-productive. I left the forums at www.ocworkbench.com a year or two ago because the forum moderators were censoring things as silly as the names of other users which they had banned (and they had banned some legitimately helpful and perfectly civil users -- not people who had it coming). Forum censorship can be a tricky balance for moderators sometimes.
- fishbert
- Posts: 941
- Joined: November 29th, 2002, 12:02 am
So, reading the latest graph (as of this writing), a good number of 0.9-targeted bugs have been fixed, but a good number seem to also have been un-marked as 0.9-targeted (0.9 unfixed goes down about 15, but 0.9 fixed only goes up by about 10). Ok, not so bad... but the 1.0-targeted list stays right at 14 during that time. Shouldn't most of those 0.9-targeted bugs (which seem to have been pushed out) have become 1.0-targeted bugs?
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: May 26th, 2003, 2:50 am
fishbert wrote:So, reading the latest graph (as of this writing), a good number of 0.9-targeted bugs have been fixed, but a good number seem to also have been un-marked as 0.9-targeted (0.9 unfixed goes down about 15, but 0.9 fixed only goes up by about 10). Ok, not so bad... but the 1.0-targeted list stays right at 14 during that time. Shouldn't most of those 0.9-targeted bugs (which seem to have been pushed out) have become 1.0-targeted bugs?
If you are concerned you should take a look at the actual bugs. It may be that a fix to one bug made some other bugs irrelevant, or it may be that some bugs have been resolved in a way other than 'FIXED'. Also, as time goes by there is more pressure to remove blocking from bugs which are actually 'enhancements'. You should take up bug-watching - it's fun