hello, On 15/09/15 16:50, David Kastrup wrote: > Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: > >> 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. > Agreed. > Well instead of doing this peace-meal via email threads and since I am looking at re-freshing our CG why not at least consider
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#issue-classification as a whole Then I can submit a patch, and we can have the discussion and perhaps (all at the same time) agree and update our docs! James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
