I've never like using versions like this :-( Gary
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > Odd way to use versions, imo. Sounds like "discussion" and "review patch" > and "patch needed" tags would be the better tool. > > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Duncan Jones <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever > > code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where > > agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the > > supplied "patch" is minimal at best. > > > > I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the > > discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to > > go ahead with the alteration/addition. > > > > Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match > > this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items, > > so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch > > Needed". > > > > Duncan > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
