Hi, This thread never got an answer:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:25:17 +0100 [email protected] wrote: > On 28/12/12 21:56, intrigeri wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just split (and closed) a few tickets that have been waiting for > > this to happen, so that we can start again from a cleaner and more > > happy state. Yay :) > > > > How about we patch our merge policy to require that a merge request > > email has, attached, a commit that deals with such leftovers? I'm > > not a great fan of that strictly formalized rules, so I'd be happy > > to hear better suggestions. Or perhaps we should just wait: the > > move to a better task tracker may be enough to encourage us to deal > > with these things in a more systematic way. > > Hi, > > With my WAN hat on, may I ask to people who often either publish or > process merge requests, what do they think about this proposal? Do you > think the gain compensate the extra workload? Would you be ready to > apply such rule to your work? > For me, this means that we choosed "we should just wait: the move to a better task tracker may be enough to encourage us to deal with these things in a more systematic way". If anyone disagree, it's time to speak up! Cheers _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
