On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:33:16AM +0100, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> > I like the [MRG+1] and [MRG+2] idea. Let's see if it can help...
> I like it too. It's useful and makes my inbox more clear.
By the way, if we decide to go that way, we should document it in the
contributors documentation.
> I like the [MRG+1] and [MRG+2] idea. Let's see if it can help...
I like it too. It's useful and makes my inbox more clear.
--
Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool.
Monitor traffic, SLA
I like the idea too, although I am afraid "MRG+2" PRs would systematically
be merged without further consideration just because of the label. It may
be sometimes useful to have more reviews, even if the actual rule is to
have two "+1".
I think it is cool to incorporate some management in there.
V
Hi,
I like the [MRG+1] and [MRG+2] idea. Let's see if it can help...
Best,
A
--
Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool.
Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyze
We seem to have a lot of PRs waiting for review in some form or another. I
think they could do with better management.
Can we use github features to make it more apparent that a PR has received
+1 (i.e. needs another reviewer) or +2 (i.e. waiting for merge)?
At the moment, [WIP] and [MRG] are mar
