Hum, sounds too much noise for an internal control. Tronical used to have a script that cherry pick the patch and added a comment to the bug iirc. Mozilla used to have a 'needs-cherrypicking-to-release branches' keyword, or something like that.
These sound not perfect either, but more sense to me. ps2: if I am the only one, ignore me. On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Alexis Menard <[email protected] > wrote: > > On May 20, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Antonio Gomes wrote: > > > Hi. > > Hi, > > > > > Why bugs keep being added and removed from the meta bugs > "blocking/depends on" list? It makes bugzilla too spammy, and does not make > any sense to me: If it is FIXED, it will be marked (even visually) as such > on the meta blocker list, so why doubling the number of bugemails we get by > removing it from the meta bug blocking list? > > > > For all other projects I've working on (including Mozilla and QtWebKit in > the past) the meta bugs were common, but such a practice was not happening. > but now it is. > > > > Maybe there is a good reason of course, but if it is noising more for > everybody than helping a small group, it should be reconsidered? > > When bugs are fixed (so there is a stripe on the number), they need to be > cherry-picked to the branch. Ademar removes them to the meta-bug so that he > can know what was cherry-picked or not. > > > > > ps: If it is only me who do not like it, ignore me. > > > > -- > > --Antonio Gomes > > _______________________________________________ > > webkit-qt mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt > > -- --Antonio Gomes
_______________________________________________ webkit-qt mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt
