[Tracker-discuss] Feature/Change request handling procedure
seefeld at sympatico.ca
Thu Nov 30 23:38:23 CET 2006
Martin v. Löwis 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.
OK, then what about
new -> open -> needs_patch_review -> needs_feedback -> closed
> 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.
Great ! What if we don't actually constrain any status transitions ?
At least as long as people aren't sure about the work flow.
Would that be better ?
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
More information about the Tracker-discuss