Re: Small improvement on shipit count

2009-06-19 Thread Christian Hammond
Definitely. Christian -- Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com Review Board - http://www.review-board.org VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Raghu raghu...@gmail.com wrote: Just adding my two cents. Yes, this will be a very useful feature. It's also

Small improvement on shipit count

2009-06-18 Thread Sebastien Douche
Hi, here we use a different shipit counting : we count only the number of shipit where the timestamp is more recent than last diff. The goal is to see shipit only for the last diff, shipit on precious diff is not relevant. Christian, what do you think about that? -- Sebastien Douche

Re: Small improvement on shipit count

2009-06-18 Thread Eduardo Felipe
Sorry about me getting into the thread but that does sounds interesting, as the current shipit count can be misleading. It could be made a setting, IMHO, as some people with legacy reviews won't like to see their shipit count suddenly decrease. But I can see how this can improve the review

Re: Small improvement on shipit count

2009-06-18 Thread Sebastien Douche
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 17:57, Eduardo Felipeeduardofelip...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry about me getting into the thread but that does sounds interesting, as the current shipit count can be misleading. Exaclty, you have shipit on old diff, not on the new. Do you have a patch? In the file

Re: Small improvement on shipit count

2009-06-18 Thread Christian Hammond
We're waiting until 1.5 to change any of this. We want to introduce a concept of policy that allows for specifying rules like this, but until then, we really don't want to change this logic, as different companies handle this differently. For example, some people want to see this only since the

Re: Small improvement on shipit count

2009-06-18 Thread Eduardo Felipe
Well, that actually is part of my Google Summer of Code project for ReviewBoard, hehehe. []s Edu Felipe On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Christian Hammondchip...@chipx86.com wrote: We're waiting until 1.5 to change any of this. We want to introduce a concept of policy that allows for