Hello Martin,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:09:43PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> It is my impression that all people who want CVS write access already
> have it (with Gustavo perhaps being one of a few exceptions).
If I may step in here -- let describe my own position, as I feel it might be shared by a number of
bystanders. I have submitted a couple of bugs and patches, and am getting some sense of what is
expected. I often run into pending patches and bugs that I'd like to help review, some that I even
feel I could accept or reject (according to your guidelines), but I'm not sure I should be trusted
CVS access right now.
What about adding an SF outcome/resolution status ("reviewed" or "proposedly closed" or even
"low-hanging fruit" :-) meaning that the issue has been reviewed and discussed, according to the
guidelines, and that the reviewer thinks the item should now be closed (commited or rejected) ? I
feel it is a better solution than just assigning the item to an arbitrary core developer.
This lets anyone step in as a reviewer, which is a status that should be clearly documented: review
other people's work and not your own, of course, and closely follow the guidelines. (SF might get in
the way if it disallows third-parties to change an issue's outcome or resolution status; reviewers
could instead use an inline keyword or ask the author to change the status.)
Armin
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