Subject: Notification: incoming/58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 01:31:28 -0600 (CST)

FVWM Bug Tracking notification

new message incoming/58

Message summary for PR#58
	From: [email-masked]
	Subject: Resize on interactive placement
	Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 01:31:26 -0600 (CST)
	0 replies 	0 followups

====> ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS <====

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 08 Dec 1998 02:18:35 -0500

%% [email-masked] writes:

  f> FVWM Bug Tracking notification
  f> new message incoming/58

  f> Message summary for PR#58
  f> 	From: [email-masked]
  f> 	Subject: Resize on interactive placement
  f> 	Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 01:31:26 -0600 (CST)
  f> 	0 replies 	0 followups

This is the second or third time I've seen exact duplicates of the same
bug (with sequential bug numbers) appear in the incoming queue.

Do we have a bug in Jitterbug causing this, or are people hitting the
"submit" button twice, or something?  Danek?

If the latter, we need to add some text to the page so people know not
to do that anymore.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Danek Duvall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:11:21 -0800

> "submit" button twice, or something?  Danek?

I hit netscape's back button at some point, taking me to a page which had
held the content of a POST-created page.  The page data was missing, so
netscape offered to recreate it by resubmitting the POST.  Not thinking
that it was going to resubmit the bug report, I just hit ok, as I usually
do.

Guess it doesn't pay not to think.  (And what a pity; I was so enjoying not
having to think ... <sigh>)  I'll be more careful in the future.

On the other hand, Jitterbug ought to have some logic to filter this stuff
out, especially if it happens so easily and frequently.

Danek

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 08 Dec 1998 11:21:14 -0500

%% Danek Duvall <[email-masked]> writes:

  dd> I hit netscape's back button at some point, taking me to a page
  dd> which had held the content of a POST-created page.  The page data
  dd> was missing, so netscape offered to recreate it by resubmitting
  dd> the POST.  Not thinking that it was going to resubmit the bug
  dd> report, I just hit ok, as I usually do.

  dd> On the other hand, Jitterbug ought to have some logic to filter
  dd> this stuff out, especially if it happens so easily and frequently.

Agreed, definitely.  We should mention this to the Jitterbug folks.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Dec 1998 10:43:56 -0600

Can someone outline how BugZilla handles this kind of thing?  Jitterbug is
convenient, but I'm getting more and more tired of it's lack of basic
functionality as time goes by.

 - J<