> >> Example workflow: > > >> * Alice creates a ticket, with an incomplete patch (no tests, > >> incorrect implementation) > >> * Bob reviews the patch, marks it "Accepted, needs tests, patch needs > >> improvement" > >> * Alice updates the patch, adding tests (but not changing the > >> implemenation). She removes the two flags. > >> * Charlie reviews the patch, resets the 'patch needs improvement flag' > >> * Alice updates the patch, fixing the implementation. She removes the > >> needs improvement flag. > >> * Daisy reviews the patch, marks it RFC. > > >> At any point in this process, a search for tickets "Accepted & has > >> patch & !needs improvement & !needs docs & !needs tests" will reveal > >> tickets that need review of some kind. These tickets either need to be > >> moved to RFC, or need to have their flags set to indicate the > >> deficiency in the patch. > > > I admit I am guilty of breaking the (unknown to me) rule/etiquette of > > marking my own tickets RFC as a last resort to move them forward. > > To date, this hasn't been formally documented. This is something that > #14401 will hopefully address.
Thanks for the example workflow. I'll definitely incorporate that into #14401. I'm gonna give that ticket one last call for "words of wisdom" from anyone who'd like to contribute to the wiki, then write it up as a patch. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
