From owner-cvs-all Wed Dec 9 22:44:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA09271 for cvs-all-outgoing; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:44:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA09265; Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:44:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sprice@hiwaay.net) Received: from localhost (sprice@localhost) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id AAA14474; Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:44:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:44:21 -0600 (CST) From: Steve Price To: Joseph Koshy cc: Greg Lehey , committers@hub.freebsd.org, vanmaren@fast.cs.utah.edu Subject: Re: Swat teams (was: problem reports) In-Reply-To: <199812100546.VAA04000@hub.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Joseph Koshy wrote: # > From what I've seen, the big problem is not the cases where people # > submit patches, but where they submit PRs with no fix and with hardly # > enough information to guess what the problem is (or even if there is a # > problem). # # There are many of those no doubt. However, a lot of our PR submitters are # quite knowledgeable and do submit patches. We should give PRs with patches # a higher priority. Even if the patch is wrong, it is a sign that the PR # submitter did put in some work before filing the PR. Actually there are quite a few more good ones than bad ones. But you're right, working on PRs with fixes (and close counts too) is the best bang for our buck. -steve # Koshy # # To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message