Re: PATCH keyword, again

On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 18:47, Lee Braiden wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 Dec 2003 6:27 pm, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > Also, we don't worry about bugs so much when they have patches. If the
> > patch is going stale or the bug particularly nasty we might moan
> Wouldn't it make sense to give patches a higher priority?  I mean, if they 
> alter the code to fix some problem, you have merging issues there, etc, too.  
> People may continue developing against old code etc.  Does it make sense to 
> continue working on new features, or even documentation with patches queued 
> that could possibly change it all?  No more than it makes sense to leave 
> problems unfixed, imho.
> Maybe this just needs to be taken a little bit more seriously...  to me, it 
> sounds analogous the typical problems of getting documentation done.
> Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about here... just asking :D

"We", above, == "The bugsquad".


Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]