Closed
Bug 356926
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
contrib/README doesn't reflect reality
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Documentation, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 3.0
People
(Reporter: mkanat, Assigned: sam.folkwilliams)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
5.42 KB,
patch
|
goobix
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
There's a README in the contrib/ directory that really needs to be updated to describe all the scripts in the directory.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Patch attached. Note one weirdness I'm seeing. contrib/ has a directory called bug-bugzilla/ which appears to be empty: $ ls bug-bugzilla/ CVS I have left this out of the README
Assignee: documentation → sam.folkwilliams
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #284838 -
Flags: review?(documentation)
Comment 3•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 284838 [details] [diff] [review] add all the missing scripts/directories to file +bugzilla_ldapsync.rb -- Script you can run via cron that queries an LDAP Is "an" the correct thing to be used here? (why not "a"?) + cvs-update.pl -- Script to keep a record of all cvs updates made "all cvs" -> "all CVS" + gnats2bz.pl -- A perl script to help import bugs from a GNATS You said above "A Python" so this should be "A Perl" ("perl" -> "Perl") Probably you just moved those around and they appear in the diff, but they still remain inconsistent. If you could check the rest of the file for this sort of stuff it would be great!
Attachment #284838 -
Flags: review?(documentation) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
Thanks - I went through everything and tried to catch it all. Also removed "you" language. In terms of "an LDAP" vs "a LDAP" there was one instance of "an LDAP" already in there. I think this is correct but if you disagree feel free to change :) Let me know if I missed anything else.
Attachment #284838 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #284936 -
Flags: review?(documentation)
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 284936 [details] [diff] [review] Doc patch for 3.0 and 3.1, changes per vladd's comments I think 'cron' is ok as it is. Thanks for the follow-up.
Attachment #284936 -
Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
Can you set the target milestone according to the release for which you've written the documentation? We need patches for each release that we support docs for (2.20, 2.22 and 3.0). If the patch doesn't apply cleanly to those branches (or you've added stuff that went for example in 2.22) we'll need distinct versions of this patch for older targets.
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 284936 [details] [diff] [review] Doc patch for 3.0 and 3.1, changes per vladd's comments This patch applies to 3.0 and 3.1. I would say you don't *need* to update the README file for 2.20 and 2.22. But if you want to do it, this would be fine.
Attachment #284936 -
Attachment description: changes per vladd's comments → Doc patch for 3.0 and 3.1, changes per vladd's comments
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
Pushing this patch in our radar for checkins. We can retarget it to 2.20 as soon as it has a patch ready.
Flags: approval+
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 3.0
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
tip: Checking in contrib/README; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/contrib/README,v <-- README new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11 done 3.0.2: Checking in contrib/README; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/contrib/README,v <-- README new revision: 1.10.14.2; previous revision: 1.10.14.1 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•