On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:08:34AM +0000, lilyp...@googlecode.com 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 _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
