Jeff Trawick wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
- make sure that the PR # is in the subject of any on-list discussion
of the patch
Why not automate this process. Change bugzilla to do the job and
autogenerate the right link:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Post
the patch to the httpd-d
Stas Bekman wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
- make sure that the PR # is in the subject of any on-list discussion
of the patch
Why not automate this process. Change bugzilla to do the job and
autogenerate the right link:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Post
the patch to the httpd-dev list]
In that bul
Jeff Trawick wrote:
It's great to see that things are happening, Jeff!
The people issues are at least:
a) making sure patches submitted on the mailing list are in the db, by
prodding the submitter to consult some on-line doc that describes the
requirements for submitting a patch
- get the sty
Paul J. Reder wrote:
You could have something like:
"An important benefit of Apache httpd is that you can modify the source as
you require. While we do understand the desire to avoid re-applying patches
to each new Apache httpd release, that ability allows users with unique
requirements to tailor
The final sentence seems a bit long and confusing. Perhaps instead of:
"An important benefit of Apache httpd is that you can modify the source as
you require, and while we understand that it is preferable to avoid
re-applying patches when a new Apache httpd is released, the ability to do
so, along
Jeff Trawick wrote:
I'd like to write up some notes tomorrow as a draft of a new "how to
submit a patch", pointing to existing info on httpd patches and
describing the current bugzilla capability.
With the help of Glenn (gs-apache-dev at gluelogic.com, there is a first draft
at http://jakarta.a
Joshua Slive wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What must be done to the bug tracker we have now to track the patches better?
(I'm not against having something better, but I don't want to see a delay in
waiting for some magic tool.)
We can already assign the keyword "PatchAvailable"
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> What must be done to the bug tracker we have now to track the patches better?
>
> (I'm not against having something better, but I don't want to see a delay in
> waiting for some magic tool.)
>
> We can already assign the keyword "PatchAvailable" for entri
André Malo wrote:
* Ben Collins-Sussman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW: in the Subversion project, we've assigned the hat of "patch
manager" to a volunteer in the community. He watches patches come in.
If any patch goes unanswered for a week or more, the patch manager files
it in the issuetr
* Ben Collins-Sussman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW: in the Subversion project, we've assigned the hat of "patch
> manager" to a volunteer in the community. He watches patches come in.
> If any patch goes unanswered for a week or more, the patch manager files
> it in the issuetracker. No m
10 matches
Mail list logo
