Community
Participate
Working Groups
It would be nice if the bot could accept private messages as input, so that if you're using it you don't have to clutter the channel.
For that matter, why should private messages require the '~'?
I have a general idea of how to implement this, but it will probably require some work tweaking to the actual provider code and/or changes to the presence api and bot framework. My primary concern here is appending '/msg' strings in order to relay the message back to the original user. This is IRC-specific and makes the bot locked in with one single protocol, per se.
Changing target version. Unfortunately, we won't get to this before Europa release.
The guide for writing bugs (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html) mentions that the version field is "In which product version did you find the bug?". Shouldn't we leave that at the original value and instead have a 1.1.0 target milestone value (or values) created?
(In reply to comment #4) > The guide for writing bugs > (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html) mentions that the > version field is "In which product version did you find the bug?". Shouldn't > we leave that at the original value and instead have a 1.1.0 target milestone > value (or values) created? Quite. The version should be whatever it was and the target be the target version of the "product" that we're hoping to fix/implement/whatever by.
But this isn't a bug, it's an enhancement (future bug :), so it seems more reasonable to me to have the Version field be the target for seeing the enhancement (rather than when the enhancement request was filed...which is pretty meaningless). Further, the "Target Milestone" field seems inappropriate to be the "Target Version" ...otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't it be labeled as such?
Mmm, I still think that the version should be the version it was filed and the target be the projected/actual completion date. It's a useful marking as to how long an enhancement has been around for...kinda like those long standing ones that have been around since 2.0 or 2.1...
(In reply to comment #7) > Mmm, I still think that the version should be the version it was filed and the > target be the projected/actual completion date. It's a useful marking as to how > long an enhancement has been around for...kinda like those long standing ones > that have been around since 2.0 or 2.1... But I think that info is useful for bugs...but not at all for enhancements. Besides, I always look at the Opened: <date> to check for history (for both bugs and enhancements) rather than version...doesn't everyone :)? Anyway, it's not that big a deal to me...so we can do it other ways...but I don't see it as necessarily advantageous to *always* do everything exactly the way Platform does in terms of project policy/procedure...it's a very different beast.
Setting target milestone to 1.1.0.
Reassigning to myself.
Using a hack right now to implement this. Once bug 200466 has been resolved I'll switch it. Resolving this anyway at the moment since it works. And no you shouldn't have to use ~ anymore, even if you're talking in the channel.
(In reply to comment #11) > Using a hack right now to implement this. Once bug 200466 has been resolved > I'll switch it. Resolving this anyway at the moment since it works. > > And no you shouldn't have to use ~ anymore, even if you're talking in the > channel. Verified: In #eclipse, I sent: /msg KOS-MOS bug200084 and in a new Gaim tab, got: (18:33:23) KOS-MOS: See bug 200084 - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=200084
