> Remember you are Patch Czar, not the slave of patches. You could > restrict yourself to incorporate only patches that people propose. Heh. No, the problem at this point as far as making estimates go is even knowing a vague idea of how much there is to do. > If you want systematic scanning, we could try to come up with a script > that automatically reviews all commit messages of patches since 2.1.1 > whether these mention an SF bug. We could then further automate > scanning to produce the number of changed lines, to exclude 'large' > changes. Hrm. That might be an idea - at the moment I've got the trunk and the 2.1 branch checked out in parallel directories, and have a teeny zsh alias to do diffs and look at the tree. I'm then checking the commit logs since the 2.1 branch to see the diffs. > Perhaps anybody in the readership of this software already has code > that does such things? We can hope... -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4