Re: [translations] Re: 2.18 release plans (again).

[James]

On 29/10/13 14:14, James wrote:
> On 29/10/13 09:19, Julien Rioux wrote:
> > On 29/10/2013 4:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > > Julien Rioux <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > On 27/10/2013 2:09 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> > > > > That's good, but the most irritating thing about this patch is not
> > > > > that i have to solve merge conflicts.  I'm mainly irritated because a
> > > > > piece of solid code (maybe it's not as solid as i think, but to know
> > > > > that i need _reviews_) is laying dormant for *half a year*, which
> > > > > prohibits me from working on some other stuff.  I would really 
> > > > > like to
> > > > > get some of my GSoC work finished and merged into master, and this
> > > > > patch is a first step for that.
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious, why is this issue set to Patch-waiting?
> >
> > I had to go answer my own question: The patch contains code changes 
> > without the necessary doc changes, so it is not suitable for 
> > Patch-review state, but Janek would appreciate reviewer comments so 
> > that the code can reach a final form before doing the doc changes.
> >
> > > > I think generally
> > > > people hardly ever have enough time to look at Patch-countdown issues,
> > > > so a Patch-waiting issue would definitely not get much attention.
> > >
> > > Well, that's what Janek complained about.  It's more or less a
> > > consequence of our grading system: "Patch-review" means "slated to move
> > > to countdown" and "Patch-Countdown" means "slated to move to
> > > Patch-push".
> >
> > Patch-waiting seems like the correct qualifier. How about advertising 
> > those Patch-waiting issues as part of the Countdown email that is 
> > sent regularly? We currently have 7 of those, and could probably 
> > pretty quickly identify which one are truly waiting and which one are 
> > now abandoned.
>
> Well if you want me to include patch-waiting then I can do that in the 
> countdowns, it's just another filter and list of tracker items.
>
> However if you want then to 'move on' from whatever patch-waiting 
> jumps to next then I just need to know what the 'rules' are so to 
> speak and what I move it to.
>
> It's not that big a deal for me.

As I have countdown due tomorrow, how about I just include the 
Patch-waiting issues and don't move them up or down (whatever that would 
mean) and leave it, for now, up to the devs to set the patch to an 
appropriate label if they wish?

In the CG we have nothing for patch-waiting, but just the others, which 
leads me on to:

"Patch-abandoned: the author has not responded to review comments for a 
few months."

Assuming that no one changes a patch-waiting for X weeks, how many would 
it take - just throwing it out there - before it just becomes 
patch-abandoned?

James