On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:29, Jeff Trawick wrote: > Cliff Woolley wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > >>This is where process gets in the way of just doing the right thing. > >>Backport it for chrissakes. > > > > > > amen. > > The process requires getting 3 +1s. Anywhere (list, irc, phonecall, STATUS) is > okay.
No, recorded +1s are okay, this brings it down to list and STATUS. Ofcourse to summarize on list that there was support by X and Y on irc or phone would be ok. > I assume what you meant was that you recognize there are 3 +1s for > backporting and Stas has no need to update his proposed backport in STATUS to > mention the other change. I don't think that was what Greg meant, but he can speak for himself ;) In any case, I think that all 2.0 patches deserve explicit eyeballing, no matter how trivial. I agree that the whole STATUS route is totally overkill for trivial patches as these. Sander
