Date: 11 Feb 2003 18:13:45 -0800 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction ;-) Message-ID: <k6wuk65jqe.uk6@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3E498592.5E5BF4EE@mindspring.com> References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> <3E498592.5E5BF4EE@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > The problem with this approach is that it's possible to ignore > a PR to make it go away, without the underlying problem being > repaired/acknowledged. No, the approach was purposely designed to avoid that. It takes either a violation of the policy or at least 10 minutes of a committer's attention and a manual "close" action to make a PR go away. The approach will no-doubt result in some good PRs being sent away, because there will be some 10-minute closers who do it carelessly, or just don't have enough time, but that would be considered an acceptable cost for the benefit of not having so many old PRs that people tend to just ignore them all. Any automatic scheme is too likely to see too many good PRs go away; some kind of review and decision should be required. (Some kind of rating system might be even better, in theory, but seems less likely to be used well.) You also want a new scheme that defaults to the current scheme if people don't support the new scheme. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?k6wuk65jqe.uk6>