On 2011-01-07, at 7:14 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > Don't you think that if people could review issues and "star" them > then such minor issues could be scheduled for release not only by > "severity" status as decided be release manager and several core > developers, but also by community vote? > > Patch requires time, experience and approved contribution agreement, > which you've sent using ground mail beforehand. Voting doesn't require > any of this, but helps core developers see what user community wants. > With the list of desired features Jesse Noller sponsored sprints will > have more value for all of us. Two things. First, technically, the bug tracker already has "stars". It's the nosy list. You can even run a search by nosy count. Second, I'm not sure starring matters that much. Ultimately, for something to be done, you need a patch. Sure, sometimes, the patch is going to be made by someone who has no interest in it, but I think most of the time the patch is submitted by someone wanting the patch to be applied. I don't think the number of stars affect the likeliness of a patch being created very much. Maybe you can point to a google code project for which starring is used intensively and to observably good results? Virgil Dupras
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