* Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> >>Anyway, I suggest to keep that for another round and keep the Robert's
> >>isofunctional patch as it is before extending.
> >
> >+1.  Let's please get the basic thing committed, and then people can
> >write more patches to extend and improve it.  There is no reason to
> >squash-merge every enhancement someone might want here into what I
> >wrote.
> >From my point of view the latest v6 of the patch is pretty "ready
> >for
> committers", but I'm not sure whom should decide that...
> Should I just update the state in the commitfest interface?

I took a look through the patch and the discussion and it certainly
seems ready to me.  I agree with Robert- let's go ahead and get this in
and then folks can build on top of it.  I'm guessing it was added as
"Needs Review" since that's the default for a new entry, but it's
clearly had review from multiple people, committers and non-committers
alike, so I went ahead and marked it as 'ready for committer' to make
that clear to folks looking at the CF app.

Robert, as this is mostly your code (and you're marked as author on the
CF app), do you want to do the actual commit, or are you impartial, or
would you prefer someone else handle it, or..?  I'm interested in this
also and would be happy to help in any way I can.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to