----- Original Message -----
From: "James" <p...@gnu.org>
To: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Issues list status
Hello,
On 15/09/15 13:57, Phil Holmes wrote:
A comment and a question about the status field of the issues list.
Comment: with Google code, the status was automatically set to "Accepted"
for issues manually entered by a registered user. I see no reason for
not
continuing this policy, but it does mean that bug squad members (and
anyone else entering issues) needs to remember to set the status
manually.
Question: there's a number of patches from _ages_ ago
labelled "needs_work". I believe we should change them to "abandoned",
Actually - after reading the CG for how patches are handled (I am
currently updating the CG here), it is the Patch Meister's
responsibility every 6 months or so to list all patches that are
needs-work to see if they should be changed to abandoned and preferably
by the dev who had the patch.
So i will try to do that on the next countdown.
but I also think that there's no point in leaving them
as "new", "accepted" or "started". Seems to me that any with
patch:abandoned should be marked with invalid status. Does the list
agree?
What about setting it to 'blank'?
James
Don't really like the idea of an undefined status. If we don't go for
"invalid", perhaps another "closed" status of "abandoned" would be better.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
