John Mandereau wrote Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:38 AM > There's a non negligible number of old issues with Patch=needs-work: > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2&q=Patch=needs_work&sort=-modified&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary%20Modified > > With the query Patchy currently uses in a server setup > > Patch=new,review,needs_work,countdown status:New,Accepted,Started > modified-after:today-30 > every new comment on those issues with old patches will trigger a test.
It's rather silly to have needs_work in this list. It's likely there will be many posts discussing what to do before the actual patch is changed. Why keep testing the same patch? When a new patch is posted with git-cl the status changes to new - that's when a further test is needed. I have enough mails to process without having to check and discard ones informing me an old patch for an issue I'm discussing has just been tested yet again. > IMHO all issues that have not changed since 2 months and have > Patch-needs_work should be labeled Patch-abandoned, could we add a > script for this? No. They need to be handled on an individual basis. Maybe the bud-quad might be willing to undertake this. Trevor _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
