A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:10:02PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
>> I don't see a good way to say "It looks good to me". I don't see any
>> way to say "There were issues, but I think they're resolved now". So
>> either way, I and the author are both sort of waiting for a committ
On 4/25/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps; part of the problem is with the SF workflow.
Yes. Brett should probably add that to the list of what's wanted from
a new tracker (good alerting of new items, and maybe some specific
"Request commit" functionality, tied to a listing of co
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> The latest weekly tracker summary says about 1300, + 200 RFEs. ...
>
>> I worry about ... a batch of 50-100 nice new patches could then sit
>> unreviewed on the patch tracker along with those already there.
>
> Is there
> If there are too many patches waiting for a committer to assess them,
> that probably points up the need for more committers.
Perhaps; part of the problem is with the SF workflow.
New bug or patch comes in. Shows up on the list of new bugs, but not
obviously ready for action. Not assigned to
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:10:02PM -0400, Jim Jewett wrote:
> I don't see a good way to say "It looks good to me". I don't see any
> way to say "There were issues, but I think they're resolved now". So
> either way, I and the author are both sort of waiting for a committer
> to randomly happen ba
> The latest weekly tracker summary says about 1300, + 200 RFEs. ...
> I worry about ... a batch of 50-100 nice new patches could then sit
> unreviewed on the patch tracker along with those already there.
Is there a good way to flag a patch as reviewed and recommendation made?
I understand that
