Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2011
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 11:35:12AM -0500, David Golden wrote: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > > and if any step fails, report back (how?) and flag the commit (how?) as not > > actually ready. > > maybe cherrymaint needs a "Failed" or "Needs work" status -- meaning > "approved, but failed to apply". > > I agree with Tux that the last approver shouldn't be expected to do > the work. We'll just see things stall at 2 that way. I think the > original proposer should be the one to do the work. From the point of view of distributing the workload, that is equally good. But yes, from the mechanics of avoiding logjams, your suggestion is better. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next