Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:55:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Studded <Studded@san.rr.com>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/6712] Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980523173722.15552B-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net> In-Reply-To: <18101.895956556@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all, I believe it only makes sense to have a 'merge', 'MFC', or 'some_more_fitting_name' state. In fact I had already promised Doug to add such a state when I upgraded GNATs on freefall to 3.104beta (which I should be finished polishing later on this weekend). How would a new state be any different than defining the 'suspended' state as one that means: 'a [PATCH] is present and is only awaiting a committer to be closed'? I don't think it would be avert any attention from a potential committer, but would rather hilight why the PR still remains in the database. An even easier fix than adding a new state would be to redefine the current 'pending' state to mean: 'committed to -current and if nobody yells real loudly it will be MFC real soon now'. We did it once, will it work again? :) Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.96.980523173722.15552B-100000>