On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah P Newren wrote: > 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. Or, just add an explanation of each of our statuses to the template. Tahdah! Instant documentation. > 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. -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part