From theycallmefish at gmail.com  Tue Feb  2 20:19:47 2016
From: theycallmefish at gmail.com (Ryan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:19:47 +0000
Subject: Skins
In-Reply-To: <CACS7coKPnqOSNopsn97274N+oW8FYxsocjmAd=YLLWyMpCufLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wf=oUhcUOFrWb2QvX9pf7Uu8bVu-VR=vzOsi1Tt+Hf=MLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <568273EA.9090108@mozilla.org> <5682812F.6060302@gmail.com>
 <56828BFF.3060107@mozilla.org> <mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
 <_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org> <CACS7coKPnqOSNopsn97274N+oW8FYxsocjmAd=YLLWyMpCufLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACS7coJkWsEHiFAaPffj2KGjQ6q2rUGLTpC9itWekqH+sGzXVg@mail.gmail.com>

I've started the process of converting Sandstone to replace Classic, but I
wanted to pose a question before I got too far into the process:

Since Dusk will remain as a built-in custom option, are we okay if Dusk
inherits some of the style design of Sandstone? If not, Dusk will become
much larger, as it will need to inherit most of the CSS from Classic.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:41 AM Ryan Wilson <theycallmefish at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since I've already been through a lot of the work on Sandstone, I'm
> willing to put in the time for the new standard skins.
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, 8:25 AM Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>> On 29/12/15 14:20, Fr?d?ric Buclin wrote:
>> > move towards Dusk. So my proposal would be: replace Classic by
>> > Standstone, and make it the new default skin for Bugzilla 6.0 (if done
>> > on time for 6.0, of course). This way 1) skins/standard/ would really be
>> > the place for the default skin, which makes sense, and 2) we could still
>> > offer an alternative to users, aka Dusk (but we would need to see how
>> > the final Standstone implementation would look like to know what to
>> > change in Dusk), and 3) we don't need to support an extra 3rd skin.
>>
>> That sounds good... however, all custom skins, which will have been
>> "based on" Classic, will need to be rewritten to be based on Sandstone.
>> We'll need to warn people.
>>
>> Still, I can see the merit of this plan.
>>
>> Gerv
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
>> dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla
>> -
>> To view or change your list settings, click here:
>> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=$MSGRCPT>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160202/b7614de3/attachment.html>

From lpsolit at gmail.com  Tue Feb  2 20:43:29 2016
From: lpsolit at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCdWNsaW4=?=)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:43:29 +0100
Subject: Skins
In-Reply-To: <CACS7coJkWsEHiFAaPffj2KGjQ6q2rUGLTpC9itWekqH+sGzXVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wf=oUhcUOFrWb2QvX9pf7Uu8bVu-VR=vzOsi1Tt+Hf=MLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <568273EA.9090108@mozilla.org> <5682812F.6060302@gmail.com>
 <56828BFF.3060107@mozilla.org>
 <mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
 <_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
 <CACS7coKPnqOSNopsn97274N+oW8FYxsocjmAd=YLLWyMpCufLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACS7coJkWsEHiFAaPffj2KGjQ6q2rUGLTpC9itWekqH+sGzXVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56B114F1.9050502@gmail.com>

Le 02. 02. 16 21:19, Ryan Wilson a ?crit :
> Since Dusk will remain as a built-in custom option, are we okay if Dusk
> inherits some of the style design of Sandstone? If not, Dusk will become
> much larger, as it will need to inherit most of the CSS from Classic.

Which style design do you have in mind?



From dylan at mozilla.com  Tue Feb  2 21:38:32 2016
From: dylan at mozilla.com (Dylan Hardison)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 16:38:32 -0500
Subject: Skins
In-Reply-To: <CACS7coJkWsEHiFAaPffj2KGjQ6q2rUGLTpC9itWekqH+sGzXVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wf=oUhcUOFrWb2QvX9pf7Uu8bVu-VR=vzOsi1Tt+Hf=MLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<568273EA.9090108@mozilla.org>
	<5682812F.6060302@gmail.com>
	<56828BFF.3060107@mozilla.org>
	<mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
	<_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
	<CACS7coKPnqOSNopsn97274N+oW8FYxsocjmAd=YLLWyMpCufLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACS7coJkWsEHiFAaPffj2KGjQ6q2rUGLTpC9itWekqH+sGzXVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANx7wfnXpgour0zuHJb3rTd3G6wTc0Yp76y51O-Xj_E2nXK0-Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Ryan Wilson <theycallmefish at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've started the process of converting Sandstone to replace Classic, but I
> wanted to pose a question before I got too far into the process:
>
> Since Dusk will remain as a built-in custom option, are we okay if Dusk
> inherits some of the style design of Sandstone? If not, Dusk will become
> much larger, as it will need to inherit most of the CSS from Classic.

You can do what you think is best to make Sandstone the default and
base. If Dusk has to change for this, go ahead and do it.


From theycallmefish at gmail.com  Tue Feb  2 21:43:12 2016
From: theycallmefish at gmail.com (Ryan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:43:12 +0000
Subject: Skins
In-Reply-To: <CANx7wfnXpgour0zuHJb3rTd3G6wTc0Yp76y51O-Xj_E2nXK0-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANx7wf=oUhcUOFrWb2QvX9pf7Uu8bVu-VR=vzOsi1Tt+Hf=MLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <568273EA.9090108@mozilla.org> <5682812F.6060302@gmail.com>
 <56828BFF.3060107@mozilla.org> <mailman.834.1451398848.21136.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
 <_N6dnesj1NW7dhrLnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@mozilla.org> <CACS7coKPnqOSNopsn97274N+oW8FYxsocjmAd=YLLWyMpCufLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACS7coJkWsEHiFAaPffj2KGjQ6q2rUGLTpC9itWekqH+sGzXVg@mail.gmail.com> <CANx7wfnXpgour0zuHJb3rTd3G6wTc0Yp76y51O-Xj_E2nXK0-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACS7coLMAbbkJ5xhNV69FWVCciZPCjipBXsTjVQsv74SZYbS0g@mail.gmail.com>

If the changes don't compromise the overall aesthetic of Dusk, I'm thinking
about keeping them in. However, if a specific Sandstone pieces make it an
eyesore, I'd overwrite on Dusk with Classic styles. Basically, I'm trying
to keep size down and the .gitignore file untouched, if possible.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:38 PM Dylan Hardison <dylan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Ryan Wilson <theycallmefish at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I've started the process of converting Sandstone to replace Classic, but
> I
> > wanted to pose a question before I got too far into the process:
> >
> > Since Dusk will remain as a built-in custom option, are we okay if Dusk
> > inherits some of the style design of Sandstone? If not, Dusk will become
> > much larger, as it will need to inherit most of the CSS from Classic.
>
> You can do what you think is best to make Sandstone the default and
> base. If Dusk has to change for this, go ahead and do it.
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=theycallmefish at gmail.com>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160202/8a24fec0/attachment.html>

From gerv at mozilla.org  Fri Feb 19 00:04:18 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:04:18 -0700
Subject: Bugzilla Meetings
Message-ID: <Aq-dnb9VJZGfwVvLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@mozilla.org>

Just a little advance warning: the next Bugzilla meeting will be next
Wednesday at 21:00 UTC:

http://arewemeetingyet.com/UTC/2016-02-24/21:00/Bugzilla%20Meeting

I didn't take any notes at the last one, but I seem to remember
lamenting this fact towards the end, and someone saying they had taken
notes. If you can remember what happened at all, can you put your
recollections here?

https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Bugzilla:Meetings:2016-01-27

Thanks!

Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From jwalker at mozilla.com  Fri Feb 26 16:21:29 2016
From: jwalker at mozilla.com (jwalker at mozilla.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:21:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Soft close
Message-ID: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>


I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING

WAITING is a status that can be included either as a closed or open status, but will probably be treated as closed in most cases.
WAITING bugs have one special property, when a comment is added to a WAITING bug, then it is automatically placed into the OPEN state.

Broadly, this allows people to ignore bugs that are waiting on someone else.

The new WAITING status solves 2 related problems:

1. The need to follow up on needinfo? items.
A bug has no STR or more info was needed. You NI? the creator, but the bug still shows up on searches and you still need to close the bug after some length of time. With a status of WAITING however, this becomes automatic.

2. Closing a 'good' bug.
A bug has been raised that is a good idea, but you know that it's never going to happen unless someone contributes a patch, and you don't want the bug to turn up in searches unless someone does chime in. So you add a comment about welcoming contributions and set the status to WAITING


My question is really a technical one. Is this possible, and how hard is it?

Thanks,

Joe.
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From kshep0010 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 26 17:14:47 2016
From: kshep0010 at gmail.com (Ken Sheppard)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:14:47 -0800
Subject: Soft close
In-Reply-To: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
References: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <CAN6ok=-aruOQeE2RBy00rcOwJVOhOK01EfXB7YAruQw3BarJUg@mail.gmail.com>

Joe,
At my organization we use the fixed status for what you are describing.
Once a bug has been fixed someone has to go in and verify, once the
verification has been done, we update the status to CLOSED Verified. If the
bug is not actually fixed we will update the status to Open, Verification
Failed. Typically, it's better to name statuses after the action that has
just taken place (which sets the current state) as opposed to a status that
describes action required to move forward. The flow is then built and
shared with your team in a document.

Thank you,
Ken Sheppard
980-318-9303

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, <jwalker at mozilla.com> wrote:

>
> I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING
>
> WAITING is a status that can be included either as a closed or open
> status, but will probably be treated as closed in most cases.
> WAITING bugs have one special property, when a comment is added to a
> WAITING bug, then it is automatically placed into the OPEN state.
>
> Broadly, this allows people to ignore bugs that are waiting on someone
> else.
>
> The new WAITING status solves 2 related problems:
>
> 1. The need to follow up on needinfo? items.
> A bug has no STR or more info was needed. You NI? the creator, but the bug
> still shows up on searches and you still need to close the bug after some
> length of time. With a status of WAITING however, this becomes automatic.
>
> 2. Closing a 'good' bug.
> A bug has been raised that is a good idea, but you know that it's never
> going to happen unless someone contributes a patch, and you don't want the
> bug to turn up in searches unless someone does chime in. So you add a
> comment about welcoming contributions and set the status to WAITING
>
>
> My question is really a technical one. Is this possible, and how hard is
> it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
> dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla
> -
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
> <http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=kshep0010 at gmail.com>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160226/9b1ff652/attachment.html>

From gerv at mozilla.org  Fri Feb 26 17:28:27 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:28:27 +0000
Subject: Soft close
In-Reply-To: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
References: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <56D08B3B.40301@mozilla.org>

Hi Joe,

On 26/02/16 16:21, jwalker at mozilla.com wrote:
> I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING

Can you explain (other than the comment-to-reopen) how this is different
from the existing status INCOMPLETE? It seems like people use this for
resolving things where someone is ignoring an ni? request.

The way to avoid getting searches for bugs which are a good idea but
need someone to work on them, is to have a Future milestone or similar.
Marking the bug as RESOLVED with some resolution is just going to mean
people don't find it.

Gerv



From ehumphries at mozilla.com  Fri Feb 26 22:25:08 2016
From: ehumphries at mozilla.com (ehumphries at mozilla.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Soft close
In-Reply-To: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
References: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <db386817-fc2f-467d-931b-9999dc8aa05c@googlegroups.com>

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 8:21:29 AM UTC-8, jwa... at mozilla.com wrote:
> I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING

I think this might be a better question to pose in fx-dev and dev-platform, rather than here, since this touches on how we're handling bugs in the project.

-- Emma 
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From jwalker at mozilla.com  Mon Feb 29 13:34:04 2016
From: jwalker at mozilla.com (jwalker at mozilla.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Soft close
In-Reply-To: <mailman.436.1456507721.12036.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
References: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
	<mailman.436.1456507721.12036.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <8b97bbe8-b8a3-4ad6-9361-fe58acd35e94@googlegroups.com>

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:28:43 PM UTC, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> On 26/02/16 16:21, jwa... at mozilla.com wrote:
> > I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING
> 
> Can you explain (other than the comment-to-reopen) how this is different
> from the existing status INCOMPLETE? It seems like people use this for
> resolving things where someone is ignoring an ni? request.
> 
> The way to avoid getting searches for bugs which are a good idea but
> need someone to work on them, is to have a Future milestone or similar.
> Marking the bug as RESOLVED with some resolution is just going to mean
> people don't find it.


Hi,
So maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. This would be an extra entry into the list that is UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED, RESOLVED, VERIFIED, CLOSED
Rather than a resolution type (which is what I see INCOMPLETE as)

Why do I want it?
* It allows me to ignore bugs which have no STR, or for which we need more info unless someone gets back to us
* It allows me to soft close feature requests from a contributor that we don't have time for, without the brutality of RESOLVED/INCOMPLETE or RESOLVED/WONTFIX.

Joe.
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From glob at mozilla.com  Mon Feb 29 13:39:50 2016
From: glob at mozilla.com (Byron Jones)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:39:50 +0800
Subject: Soft close
In-Reply-To: <8b97bbe8-b8a3-4ad6-9361-fe58acd35e94@googlegroups.com>
References: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com> <mailman.436.1456507721.12036.dev-apps-bugzilla@lists.mozilla.org> <8b97bbe8-b8a3-4ad6-9361-fe58acd35e94@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <56D44A26.7010902@mozilla.com>

joe,
> So maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. This would be an extra entry into the list that is UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED, RESOLVED, VERIFIED, CLOSED
> Rather than a resolution type (which is what I see INCOMPLETE as)
as per emma's response this isn't the right list for this discussion.

this list is for bugzilla-the-product development.  you're asking for a 
configuration change to one install, so it should be discussed on a 
mozilla specific list (eg. dev-platform, fx-dev, tools-bmo).

fwiw adding new statuses to bugzilla.mozilla.org is highly unlikely to 
happen before a organisation-wide workflow is agreed upon.  that's a 
massive undertaking that emma's working towards.


-glob

-- 
byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team lead -

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160229/d4d82ad8/attachment.html>

From jwalker at mozilla.com  Mon Feb 29 13:37:40 2016
From: jwalker at mozilla.com (jwalker at mozilla.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Soft close
In-Reply-To: <db386817-fc2f-467d-931b-9999dc8aa05c@googlegroups.com>
References: <c16b05fd-d821-4327-adf5-c7d30777fe18@googlegroups.com>
	<db386817-fc2f-467d-931b-9999dc8aa05c@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3e407bd-d0c5-486a-bc09-ff8391f2178a@googlegroups.com>

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 10:25:09 PM UTC, ehump... at mozilla.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 8:21:29 AM UTC-8, jwa... at mozilla.com wrote:
> > I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING
> 
> I think this might be a better question to pose in fx-dev and dev-platform, rather than here, since this touches on how we're handling bugs in the project.

There are 2 questions: Is this technically feasible? and Do we want to do it?

Technical feasibility is fairly simple, so I'm asking that first. I'd hate a long dev-platform discussion to then be told "Fine but that's a complete re-write".

I'm not hearing an technical reasons why this is particularly hard, so dev-platform will be next...

Joe.
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From gerv at mozilla.org  Mon Feb 29 15:54:06 2016
From: gerv at mozilla.org (Gervase Markham)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:54:06 +0000
Subject: Bugzilla Meetings
In-Reply-To: <Aq-dnb9VJZGfwVvLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
References: <Aq-dnb9VJZGfwVvLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <jOSdnWTieswD9EnLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@mozilla.org>

On 19/02/16 00:04, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Just a little advance warning: the next Bugzilla meeting will be next
> Wednesday at 21:00 UTC:
> 
> http://arewemeetingyet.com/UTC/2016-02-24/21:00/Bugzilla%20Meeting

I have just noticed that in the original discussion I decided this
meeting would be 9pm GMT (i.e. it would move with northern hemisphere
daylight savings) rather than 9pm UTC. Given where the participants have
been coming from in the last few meetings, that seems to make sense to
me. IOW, the meeting is defined in GMT not UTC, and will "move" 1 hr
relative to UTC after the end of March.

Does that make sense to people, or not?

Gerv


_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla


From bugzilla at colinogilvie.co.uk  Mon Feb 29 22:57:25 2016
From: bugzilla at colinogilvie.co.uk (Colin)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:57:25 +0000
Subject: Bugzilla Meetings
In-Reply-To: <jOSdnWTieswD9EnLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@mozilla.org>
References: <Aq-dnb9VJZGfwVvLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@mozilla.org> <jOSdnWTieswD9EnLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <08D03A01-F4CF-47C8-9F49-73E4E45E7E55@colinogilvie.co.uk>


> On 29 Feb 2016, at 15:54, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> 
> I have just noticed that in the original discussion I decided this
> meeting would be 9pm GMT (i.e. it would move with northern hemisphere
> daylight savings) rather than 9pm UTC. Given where the participants have
> been coming from in the last few meetings, that seems to make sense to
> me. IOW, the meeting is defined in GMT not UTC, and will "move" 1 hr
> relative to UTC after the end of March.
> 
> Does that make sense to people, or not?

http://www.timeanddate.com/time/gmt-utc-time.html would disagree with you... 9PM UTC is 9PM GMT, regardless of daylight savings?

Colin

From justdave at bugzilla.org  Mon Feb 29 23:02:37 2016
From: justdave at bugzilla.org (Dave Miller)
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:02:37 -0500
Subject: Bugzilla Meetings
In-Reply-To: <jOSdnWTieswD9EnLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@mozilla.org>
References: <Aq-dnb9VJZGfwVvLnZ2dnUU7-XmdnZ2d@mozilla.org> <jOSdnWTieswD9EnLnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <9DE1FC05-742B-4530-BC31-136EB4A36544@bugzilla.org>

GMT and UTC are the same thing, neither has daylight saving time.

On February 29, 2016 10:54:06 AM EST, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
>On 19/02/16 00:04, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Just a little advance warning: the next Bugzilla meeting will be next
>> Wednesday at 21:00 UTC:
>> 
>> http://arewemeetingyet.com/UTC/2016-02-24/21:00/Bugzilla%20Meeting
>
>I have just noticed that in the original discussion I decided this
>meeting would be 9pm GMT (i.e. it would move with northern hemisphere
>daylight savings) rather than 9pm UTC. Given where the participants
>have
>been coming from in the last few meetings, that seems to make sense to
>me. IOW, the meeting is defined in GMT not UTC, and will "move" 1 hr
>relative to UTC after the end of March.
>
>Does that make sense to people, or not?
>
>Gerv
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
>dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
>https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla
>-
>To view or change your list settings, click here:
><http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=justdave at bugzilla.org>

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bugzilla.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160229/8b9aaafd/attachment.html>