Re: "Patches without the PATCH keyword" Bugzilla query

[Elijah P Newren <newren math utah edu>]

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Luis Villa wrote:

> > We really have that status?  Wouldn't accepted-commit_after_thaw be more
> > what we want?  I'm afraid people won't understand
> > accepted-commit_after_freeze and will apply patches when they
> > shouldn't be.
>
> I see your point, though I can't imagine anyone bright enough to write a
> useful patch missing the point on that one. It's not too late to change,
> though, I guess... anyone else feel strongly one way or the other?

You are probably right that no one is actually going to make the mistake.
However, it might be possible that a maintainer will avoid marking that
checkbox simply because it looks wrong (resulting in more bugs with
patches that don't have a status set).  And you might receive future
emails from other people who notice this problem, meaning that you'd have
to answer several emails if you don't change this now.

It's your call, but I don't see the harm in changing it and think there
might be harm (even if it's just wasted time) if we don't.

Also, on a related note, it might be useful to have a
"I'm-too-busy-to-review-until-after-the-thaw" status.  I've seen a number
of maintainers put comments to that effect in a number of different bugs.
If you want to keep the number of bugs with patches without a status set
low, then this might be helpful.

Elijah