Talk:LlSetPayPrice
Jira issue
It seems that VWR-8744 is fixed. Should it be crossed out or removed from here? -- Fred Gandt (talk|scripts|contribs) 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Heyas :)
- The info about the bug is stored at Template:Issues/VWR-8744. These bug templates use Template:Issue, which provides parameters to adjust the proper status. I changed the issue accordingly, which displays it striked through in the article. Guess it's good to leave it there for future reference.
- --
(talk|contribs) 06:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hiya. Thanx for explaining Zai. I may actually get the hang of the templates one day. For now I am still trying to master LSL. See ya in-world! -- Fred Gandt (talk|scripts|contribs) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- We keep the dead issues listed on the page for two reasons:
- So there is a record of the bug having existed and it's resolution is documented. If the information were stripped from the article, it would be harder for the user to confirm the status of the bug and the functionality.
- If the bug comes back, it's easier for a reader of the article to reopen the correct jira. It reduces the chances of a repost/duplicate bug report.
- I do worry though that folks won't look for/in the "Issues" subsection when they don't find it in the "Important Issues" subsection. Maybe a link should be added to the important issues subsection (when the two do not match)? -- Strife (talk|contribs) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- p.s we list the occasional feature request because otherwise jira gets flooded with duplicate requests. Some feature requests are universally attractive. It was my original intention not to list them, I thought they would crowd the documentation. But by not having a place for them lead them to be listed as caveats and they crowded out the useful caveats. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- p.p.s It's important to remember that while this is a technical resource it's one for humans. There is a social aspect that cannot be denied. We document what is there, but there is a flow to the community and it creates edies & rappids around the content. While it isn't our goal to map the river, it would be stupid not to point out the waterfalls. (I'm done rambling on about random things) -- Strife (talk|contribs) 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Eddies and Freddies Strife! Eddies and Freddies... I thought at the start of this that a resolved jira should be crossed through. I thought that happened automatically though. Good job you and Zai are about to fix all this stuff or the wiki might get wakky. I trust your back has mended well ;-) -- Fred Gandt (talk|scripts|contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)