[Tracker-discuss] Feature/Change request handling procedure
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Thu Nov 30 21:34:56 CET 2006
Stefan Seefeld schrieb:
> 1) additional status enumeration
> new -> open -> needs_review -> needs_feedback -> closed
I agree with Brett: needs_review still wouldn't allow me
to search for patch-containing submissions; giving an
explicit "patch needs review" status would be necessary.
I'm slightly uncomfortable about that approach since it
codifies a process which isn't codified so far. The
discomfort is only about the codification - I can see
that the implied process could actually work.
More information about the Tracker-discuss