On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:20:33PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > convenient). It should only contain patches that have completed a
> > countdown, and/or patches that the author wishes to skip the
> > review process.
>
> Shrug. That means to me that this patch is d
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:08:34AM +, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
> I think that "Needs-evidence" is sufficient for indicating the need
> for discussion. The patch status would remain Patch-review (meaning
> that the patch may or may not be acceptable in his current form but
> is not going
