On 09/08/18 18:54, Daniel Axtens wrote:
This series starts work on the latter of these by addressing yet another
issues, #22 [3]. Full details of the feature are provided inline but
tl;dr labels are arbitrary bits of metadata that can be used to
represent some of the more orthogonal states like "RFC" or "Under
Review" along with other maintainer-provided labels. Once we have
support for this, we can build upon it to migrate some of the 'states'
to labels and the 'state' field itself to a boolean field. This is all
in the future though.
So I haven't read through the patches in great detail, but I want to
just query the idea that RFC is orthogonal. I understand a bunch of
maintainers have a general policy of not merging RFC patches, so if
something is posted as RFC they just mark it as RFC on Patchwork and
then don't ever look at it again.
+ mpe: I think we touched on this issue of the orthogonality of the RFC
classification when we were chatting about snowpatch things the other day?
--
Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra
andrew.donnel...@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited
_______________________________________________
Patchwork mailing list
Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
