From owner-freebsd-bugs Sat May 23 15:58:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA16828 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:58:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from fly.HiWAAY.net (sprice@fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA16780 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:58:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sprice@hiwaay.net) Received: from localhost (sprice@localhost) by fly.HiWAAY.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA29777; Sat, 23 May 1998 17:55:17 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 17:55:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Price To: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: Studded , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/6712] In-Reply-To: <18101.895956556@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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