[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnu-patches back log
From: |
John Darrington |
Subject: |
Re: gnu-patches back log |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:14:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:17:39AM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote:
I would like to ask the Guix mailing list members whether it is
*acceptable* that a good looking patch has not been touched for two
weeks. Like this one
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725
Looks to me like it could go right in, even if it has no tests. And I
bet it was linted.
I.e., LGTM, and apologies for the submitter. It is just embarrassing
and as a project we can do better *together*. If two weeks is
acceptable, will 4 weeks be acceptable? Where do we draw the line?
We already have a policy that if nobody comments on a patch the submitter
may commit it after two weeks.
Silence gives consent!
--
Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email.
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: gnu-patches back log, (continued)
- Re: gnu-patches back log, ng0, 2017/03/01
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Leo Famulari, 2017/03/01
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Pjotr Prins, 2017/03/01
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Leo Famulari, 2017/03/01
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Pjotr Prins, 2017/03/01
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Catonano, 2017/03/01
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/03/07
- Re: gnu-patches back log, Catonano, 2017/03/13
- Re: gnu-patches back log,
John Darrington <=
Re: gnu-patches back log, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/03/06