Ram Bhamidipaty writes: Thank you for doing this work! Please use "core code 21.5" or "core code 21.4" for now, depending on which version the issue was reported for. If no version is available, use both (yes, you can check multiple boxes there; see issue 432 for an example). It's possible, but to create modules you will need tracker administrator privilege. I'd rather not hand that out to people I've never heard from before. :-) If you want to do that kind of work, we can discuss it. But we need to come to some agreement on a system for doing these things. I've thought about it a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that having too many modules, platforms, and keywords is not a good idea at the moment. See also my response to Vladimir's summary of issues he's encountered. The rationale for the division of modules is (1) There should not be too many modules, or searches on modules may miss many related bug reports. (Also reporters and triagers may have trouble deciding which module(s) to select.) (2) Bodies of code which are of interest to different developers should have different modules. For the core code, it's reasonable to assume that most developers know C and Lisp, so the core code is lumped together. However, Vin Shelton has special responsibility for 21.4, so there's a separate module for 21.4. The build system requires expertise in make and autoconf, so it gets a separate module. The various infrastructure gets individual modules (tracker, website, CVS/hg). And since each package may have its own maintainer, the packages get a module each. I'm open to discussion of different ways of organizing this, but it needs to be focused on - not being burdensome to reporters - not making searches hard - providing useful classifications for developers to search on Again, thanks for doing this work! _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta