On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 01:04:52AM -0700, Chris Wanstrath wrote: > 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.
I have nothing against feedback. Feedback is good. The only way you're going to get better patches over time is if you communicate how the patches you're getting are insufficient. My *only* gripe is with the manner in which the communication is being performed. I have a particular definition of what 'closed' means to me, and it's not "OK, time to write a test case". - Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
