A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:04:12PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
>
>> So how are the committers supposed to even know that it is waiting for
>> assessment? The solutions that I've seen work are
>>
>
> Could we mark the bug/patch as status 'pending'? This status exists
>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:04:12PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
> So how are the committers supposed to even know that it is waiting for
> assessment? The solutions that I've seen work are
Could we mark the bug/patch as status 'pending'? This status exists
in the SF bug tracker but no bugs or patche
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:10:02PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
>> I don't see a good way to say "It looks good to me". I don't see any
>> way to say "There were issues, but I think they're resolved now". So
>> either way, I and the author are both sort of waiting for a committ
On 4/25/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps; part of the problem is with the SF workflow.
Yes. Brett should probably add that to the list of what's wanted from
a new tracker (good alerting of new items, and maybe some specific
"Request commit" functionality, tied to a listing of co
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> The latest weekly tracker summary says about 1300, + 200 RFEs. ...
>
>> I worry about ... a batch of 50-100 nice new patches could then sit
>> unreviewed on the patch tracker along with those already there.
>
> Is there
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:10:02PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
> I don't see a good way to say "It looks good to me". I don't see any
> way to say "There were issues, but I think they're resolved now". So
> either way, I and the author are both sort of waiting for a committer
> to randomly happen ba
