|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Harleen Gretzky added a comment - 21/Mar/08 05:36 AM - edited
VWR-4312 should be SVC, otherwise it would be un-enforceable because third-party viewers could choose to ignore it.
Done. Moved the issue to SVC, and I've removed the link now to avoid confusion
Along with some delicious irony for you : ) I have the authority to move issues. I've set a watch here, and will take care of any issues needing moved. Just link them here and add a comment as to why, and where they need to be moved. Also, the above described circumstances should not preclude moving an issue. When it is moved, the old issue number redirects to the new one, so people still won't have problems finding it.
As do I, but it's nice to know someone else will be helping me on my little project here
I've always wondered if losing the hyperlink to moved issues was a setting, and could be fixed. Entering them manually redirects to the current issue; it'd be nice to keep those active as references, though. . I originally filed this as MISC since there's no real convention for meta issues as far as I can tell (the original ones were all in SVC, even) but the WEB category works for me. And yes, the irony definitely made me laugh! Anyway. I'd be against moving assigned issues, mainly because bugs etc. get known by their issue number at triages, and I wouldn't want to confuse people. Plus, if a linden's working on it, the point's largely academic then anyway. I've set myself watching as well
McCabe, I'm not sure what you mean about hyperlinks. As far as I can tell, all attempts to access the old issue ID redirect to the new one, both in external URLs and internal issue references in comments. Thanks guys, girls... whatever. Nice to know that there's people with the perms to fix these on the case.
@Lex: Sorry, was just noticing that VWR-4312 ceased to be a valid link after the issue was moved, and was wondering why. A quick search on Atlassian's JIRA shows someone filed an issue about it then it was forgotten: http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-12488
 . Guess mystery solved. VWR-5703 and VWR-5704 are Havok 4 vehicle bugs and should be moved to SVC.
done and done. Set affects version havok 4 beta too
VWR-5778 proved to be server-side.
VWR-5721 happens in all viewers so must be server side.
VWR-5975 should be moved to SVC it is a 1.20 Havok issue.
VWR-2611 is a Havok 1.20.0 Server issue
MISC-1063 is a Havok 1.20.0 issue and should be moved to SVC
MISC-1065 should be a Havok 1.20.0 SVC issue.
VWR-6003 is a Havok 1.20.0 Server issue and should be moved to SVC.
MISC-1069 is a Havok 1.20.0 issue and should be moved to SVC
VWR-6039 should be a Havok 1.20 SVC issue.
MISC-1070 has link to PN site describing copybot and where to obtain it, should probably be moved to SEC and let Linden Lab move it back if they do not consider it a security issue.
I wasn't sure about MISC-1070, but I've done it anyways.
For future reference, if the issue needs to be moved to security, DO NOT link it to this issue. Doing so exposes the summary, which may still pose a risk. It really depends on the LSL feature if it should be in SVC or VWR. The LSL compiler is client side, so as long as the change to the compiler doesn't require changing LSO, the issue can be filed as VWR issue.
So an issue moved to SEC will still come up if you click a link made before it was moved?
(And by all means, people should DEFINITELY post SEC issues in a comment here. The faster they can get moved, the better). No, but I believe the summary line will still be visible as a link, which can be enough for someone to figure out an exploit.
VWR-6074 is a Havok 4 Link question and should be SVC
A sub-task has been created under the Meta-Issue for the Beta Land Store (WEB-650) it should of course be a separate issue and then linked to the meta-issue.
WEB-699 is an issue with the client browser and should be moved to VWR.
SVC-2555 is a a viewer issue relating to crashing and should be moved to VWR.
SVC-2097 is a viewer issue relating to freezing/crashing and should be moved to VWR.
VWR-8078 is a server issue and should be under SVC
VWR-8290 should be a SVC issue.
VWR-8380 should be SVC issues
All done ella. Might want to delete your comment there.
MU-19 "Lost inventory - system error" should not be a Mulib issue
SVC-904, SVC-1148, SVC-3034, VWR-11671 all appear to be duplicates of each other, but the issue appears to me to be a viewer issue since TPing out of the region and back in fixes the problem. Need to make them all VWR or SVC and resolve as duplicates all but one, preferably someone who knows the viewer code can determine whether it is SVC or VWR.
Hm, yeah, agreed. I'll resolve these and add any extra info to the latest one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Meta Issue
Open
Normal
Meta-Issue: Misfiled Issues (issues in the wrong category)
