Mon Mar 15 02:42:15 EDT 2010
it appears that the review process is working as intended:
"Some of these patches have outstanding quality issues"
A bug tracker is probably exactly the right thing to use here. In
many projects, patches with quality issues which are still driven for
inclusion by a release team will get committed, but a bug will be
*opened* to record the additional work still needed.
When this is not done, it seems to me to indicate that people do not
trust the bug tracker.
So maybe we're really not talking about patch review process at all,
but about how bugs are entered, recorded, *not forgotten*, and
Is there a release process people trust to ensure that bugs targeted
for a certain release are eventually resolved? If one were to commit
some of Bernie's patches, how would we ensure that someone gets around
to fixing their "quality issues" for the next release?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 ( http://cscott.net/ )
More information about the Sugar-devel