[Tracker-discuss] Feature/Change request handling procedure

Neal Norwitz nnorwitz at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 22:49:03 CET 2006


On 11/30/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> 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.

But don't we mostly do that already?  At least those of us that review
bugs often (like yourself, Georg and me).  I suspect the people that
care are already on this list.  They will speak up if they disagree.
We can always change the process if it doesn't work out, so I'm ok
with doing this.  If it helps clarify to users (and developers!) the
state of any particular issue and what needs to happen next, that's a
good thing.

n


More information about the Tracker-discuss mailing list