Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABeJX=1-DGM1nnk7U0etxRRXdrVSrWg512aVjoJtoNDEvGfJNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABeJX=1-DGM1nnk7U0etxRRXdrVSrWg512aVjoJtoNDEvGfJNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:19:35 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CABLGb9yUez-1vWMbPHpOX734KkVUjszrhh8HmGJOJgnax_3VOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lang] Use of "Review Patch"
From: Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135a932d6b92e0513c910d9

--001a1135a932d6b92e0513c910d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Odd way to use versions, imo. Sounds like "discussion" and "review patch"
and "patch needed" tags would be the better tool.


Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Duncan Jones <djones@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Currently the "Review Patch" fix version seems to be applied whenever
> code has been supplied in an issue. This includes situations where
> agreement hasn't yet been reached on fixing the issue and where the
> supplied "patch" is minimal at best.
>
> I would prefer if we only use this marker on issues where the
> discussions have already been completed and we've decided we want to
> go ahead with the alteration/addition.
>
> Do others agree with this? If so, I'll edit existing issues to match
> this. I then plan to try and clean up some of the "Discussion" items,
> so that we either close them or move them to "Review Patch" or "Patch
> Needed".
>
> Duncan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

--001a1135a932d6b92e0513c910d9--