Robert Bradshaw wrote: > I think process rather than ownership centric is a good move. > Certainly better than what we have. Is there a "merged" transition > from positive review to closed?
I was imagining that the release maintainer would close the ticket when it was merged, like what is done now. Why should we have a separate merged stage? > How about "incomplete" or "undecided" for needs_info? (Maybe > needs_info is the best name, just throwing ideas out there.) I was trying to go for names that indicated what needed to be done to move the ticket forward; for that reason, I like "needs info" better. I imagine a ticket will go into that state if the work has stalled because, for example: * an issue needs to be raised and decided on sage-devel * a licensing issue needs to be worked out to okay the inclusion into Sage * a bug in an outside package needs to be confirmed Basically, if I'm working on a ticket, but then realize that to make any progress, I need to ask around about something, the ticket goes into "needs info". To me, that state means that work on the ticket has been postponed. > > I think rather than having several kinds of needs_work states, we > should have a new field. Thus we could have "needs_work" with the > "issues" field being documentation, doctests, rebasing, ... That makes sense. However, then I think we're back to the problem of having to type in things and have no spelling errors in order to pull up a list in a report. Do you think it's worth the tradeoff? With different states, a report can just include all "needs_work" state, but easily separate them as well. Jason -- Jason Grout --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
