Subject: Re: PRs should first have submitted status rather than open
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
From: Petri Koistinen <email@example.com>
Date: 05/25/2001 17:40:24
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I doubt it. If people don't move PRs from open to analysed, why should
> they start doing it for submitted->open? All you've done is renamed open
> to submitted.
OK, as you didn't understand my previous mail as indent it, let me make
myself clear. I changed my mind, yes I now agree that we don't need
official submitted state, it wouldn't change it anything.
But what we could have is better report on http://www.netbsd.org/Gnats/
page. New defition of submitted PR: it has field "State: open" and
empty "Audit-Trail:" field.
Now number of submitted PRs is only a statistical figure. We would see the
cruel fact that because lack of time there many PR with haven't be touched
at all. It's not for blaming anyone, but it would serve as a progress
What good reasons there is why we should keep this information hidden?