> We need to avoid a user/contributor experience of: "my pull request > was abruptly closed with no warning"
I agree, I definitely want to go about this in a non-jerk way. I would be pissed if I spent hours coding something, and it was put on the back burner and eventually closed (especially without notice). The wording and process could use refinement. > Contributors might not track the state of the tree on a day-to-day > basis. Thus, following the example of bugzilla.redhat.com and many > other "tracker" applications, outdated issues first initiate an > automated warning email -- usually by adding a comment to the bug > report -- that describes the policy, why the policy (closing outdated > reports) exists, and how to avoid automated report closure. I can definitely do this, and give a wordy notice before I start the timer. I will write up a message that links to a rebase walkthrough (any suggestions? I think Gavin has one somewhere...), I would like it to be more detailed than GitHub's walk-through. My main reason for pushing this is that it will help clear out some of the older pulls/issues that exist right now. I'm hoping that in the future, the QA process will be good enough that pulls/issues won't fall behind from lack of testing - and the timers will be used very sparingly. It should only be in place to sort out the pulls/issues that the majority doesn't want included in the client. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
