Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:imm5c2$rib$1...@dough.gmane.org...
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate
states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave
fixme for the latter and add a new broken
Happy-melon wrote:
Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:imm5c2$rib$1...@dough.gmane.org...
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate
states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave
fixme for the latter
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
This made me realize something that's only tangentially related to the
existing thread, namely that we're currently using the fixme status in
Code Review for two different kinds of commits:
1. commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and
2.
On 03/24/2011 08:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
* We need to set a clear policy for reverting problematic revisions
(fixme's) if they aren't addressed quickly enough (again, let's say
within a week). Currently we largely leave them be, but I think we
should go back to something more decisive and
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Ilmari Karonen nos...@vyznev.net wrote:
On 03/24/2011 08:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
* We need to set a clear policy for reverting problematic revisions
(fixme's) if they aren't addressed quickly enough (again, let's say
within a week). Currently we largely
