Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 03:53:03AM +0000, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote: >> I don't particularly like "Patch-needs_work: Review has identified >> some problems" status when the only "problem" is that the patch is >> based (and consequently blocked) on another patch. > > fine, I invented a > Patch-waiting: Patch is blocked, but still needs review > > I'm not convinced that 7 different patch levels is great; the more > labels we have, the harder it is to capture their status at a > glance. But I agree that the previous situation was sub-optimal, > and I'm not interested in discussing any optimal solution at the > moment. > > We can revisit this in GOP in 2012.
I would have just kept it at at "Patch-new" until the block was gone. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
