On 7/13/07, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems heavy-handed for patches which fix defects. I mean, if a defect > report didn't have a patch at all, it'd stay open, but if it's a *better* > report (ie closer to being fixed, just not quite all the way there) then it > gets closed? That seems... counterproductive. (Disclaimer: I'm not a > neutral party on this topic -- I've had a couple of bugs with patches > treated this way recently; it *really* made me less interested in > contributing future patches). I understand why patches get triaged, and > there is the possibility of bad patches hanging around forever, but surely > the policy of expiring old bug reports could also apply to half-baked > patches, rather than instant closure?
Really? Cuz I had patches that got ignored, so I stopped contributing. Having them rejected with a reason would have helped. That said, I like the new wiki page. Simple and to the point. The patch process becoming more transparent is a real win, thanks guys. -- Chris Wanstrath http://errfree.com // http://errtheblog.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
