On 18 December 2014 at 12:23, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/18/2014 08:05 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote: > >> I'm not sure if we have an official process (yet), but that's what I've >> been doing. Comments, Mike? >> >> > I think we don't need to open bugs for already fixed things. What is the > reason for that? > To make it easier to track things like this :) To my shame I see that I never responded to this originally :( > > Maxim. > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Taras Kondratiuk < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/2014 01:42 PM, Bill Fischofer wrote: >> >> This looks good. As a practice, for patch revisions >> post-merge I think >> these should be tracked as bugs that are being fixed, and the >> patch >> comments should note what bug it's addressing. >> >> >> Is it our 'official' approach? >> Should I create bugs on bugs.linaro.org <http://bugs.linaro.org> >> by myself in this case? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lng-odp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Sr Technical Manager LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
