On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:22:30 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Fernando J. Pereda wrote: | > I think APPROVED doesn't reflect the idea; since nobody 'approved' | > the ebuild. A developer just checked it looks good and 'seems to | > work'. REVIEWED or CHECKED make more sense imho. | | I like REVIEWED; it seems to reflect the intended meaning.
Ok. You have until whenever I next encounter Jeff to come up with a better name, or REVIEWED it is. And it seems I was dreaming about bugzilla allowing () stuff after keywords entries (maybe I was thinking of one of the zillion other bug trackers out there...), so there'll be no "who did the review" tag suffix for now. | And I'm please that Ciaran is promoting peer review of ebuilds. Now if | we can just get him off the idea that dev submitted stuff is 'correct | by default' we'll be getting somewhere in terms of QA. ;) Oh come on, haven't you heard my rants about the state of the tree and the number of monkeys who have commit access? Problem is, getting decent QA done once things hit the tree is in many cases very difficult -- the kind of people who won't accept QA feedback are usually the kind who are making the worst mistakes. The maintainer-wanted list is simply an easier target... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgp9WUXFPMX3D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
