[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Patch-needs_work vs. others

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Patch-needs_work vs. others
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:16:03 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:08:34AM +0000, address@hidden wrote:
> I think that "Needs-evidence" is sufficient for indicating the need
> for discussion.  The patch status would remain Patch-review (meaning
> that the patch may or may not be acceptable in his current form but
> is not going forward).

Let's move discussion to -devel.  And the answer is "no".

I do not want to require that the patch meister, much less Patchy,
understand the difference between various types of Patch-review
items.  Patch-review should mean "no known problems, and it can go
on a countdown".

I'm ok with having two "non-review, non-new" types if you want,
although I don't see the point of introducing that much
granularity.  We could have Patch-discuss vs. Patch-needs_work.

> Once Mike gets through with making master or dev/staging
> convert-ly-clean, I'll likely prepare a single-commit version (as a
> merge with the results of the convert-ly run) and put it to
> dev/staging for final review/countdown.

No.  dev/staging means "merge and push ASAC" (as soon as
convenient).  It should only contain patches that have completed a
countdown, and/or patches that the author wishes to skip the
review process.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]