Date: 24 May 1998 14:43:33 +0200 From: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) To: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Studded <Studded@san.rr.com>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/6712] Message-ID: <xzpogwn96ve.fsf@skejdbrimir.ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Steve Price's message of "Sat, 23 May 1998 17:55:17 -0500 (CDT)" References: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980523173722.15552B-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> writes: > 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. There is a big difference between "we have a patch for current and are waiting for someone to commit it" and "we have fixed this in current and are waiting for someone to test it on stable". I vote for a new GNATS state. -- Noone else has a .sig like this one. 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?xzpogwn96ve.fsf>