Re: [Fwd: [evolution-patches] fix for bug #62665]

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>]

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 21:33, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 12:52 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 12:10 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > I've tested it - it wouldn't be up for review if it hadn't been tested.
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 17:58 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > During hard-code-freeze, we like to know how much patches have been tested
> > > > so that you're very confident that it won't introduce new serious bugs.
> > > > You are probably far more thorough than most, but still we'd like to have
> > > > that box checked.
> > 
> > What kind of testing are you looking for?
> 
> The more the better. For instance, it's nice to know when a bug
> submitter has used a patch for a while. This phase of the release cycle
> is scary, as I'm sure you know.
> 
> I'm sure that you test patches quite thoroughly. I just wanted to hear
> it. 
> 
> >  We peer review the patches as
> > well.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> So here's 1 of 2 necessary approvals for that patch.

	Fix for unexpected data loss, fix is straightforward. Approval 2 of 2.

Cheers,
Mark.