Am 15.09.2015 um 15:39 schrieb David Kastrup:
Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> writes:
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",
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?
No. If a particular patch was not developed sufficiently to deal with a
particular problem, that does not make the problem magically go away.
If a patch has been abandoned for lack of skill or time, Status should
go back to Accepted. Though it can’t be said in general: if it has been
abandoned because the developer decided it didn’t make sense, or if it
has become obsolete through other development, then Status:Invalid will
be the right choice.
I also think that we should deprecate Type:Patch. It doesn’t say
anything on the area in which the patch operates; it’s redundant if
Patch: is set at the same time; and the difference if an issue has had
an associated patch from the beginning or later on is a mere
administrative one and has no relevance for dealing with the issue.
Another question is the replacement of GC’s Blocking functionality.
James, you added 'Labels:Invalid, Dupe of 4584' to issue 4578. I think
Invalid is redundant and 'Dupe of…' is too colloquial for my taste. I
have changed it into Labels:Mergedinto_4584, which I think fits the
other naming schemes. It doesn’t show up in the search for '4584', but
for 'labels:mergedinto*'.
Yours, Simon
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
