[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Labelling of patches
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Labelling of patches |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:31:39 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 06:21:45PM +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 12/17/11 10:31 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >Dunno about Phil, but I'd define it as "an issue which has no Tiny
> >example".
>
> How about doc revisions? They have no tiny example. Do we want to make
> sure the changes have made it to the binary distribution, or is it
> sufficient to say they have been pushed to master?
I'd argue that the explanation of the change is a Tiny example, or
at least close enough for this purpose.
> To me, the type should be something like "No visible output" or "Verify
> commit only", instead of "Patch"
Sounds ok to me.
Cheers,
- Graham