[Squeakfoundation]Handling fixes/enhancements

[danielv at netvision.net.il]

Well, the idea is that as a harvester/Guide you can also add a comment
"approved" when you think it's fit to go (based on whatever evidence has
accumulated). Before you do that, you should review everything people
actually said (open up all those mails) and maybe critique the content
of what people said - that's the way we have to make sure things get
reviewed in a way we can trust in the future.

Basically, unless Doug decides to be extra suspicous (his prerogative)
or someone else objects, that should be all it takes for Doug to roll it
in as an update.

Daniel

Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> "Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer at blackboard.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tim --
> > 
> > The "Commenting Bugs and Fixes" page is up-to-date ( and fairly clear thanks to Joshua Gargus ): http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3103
> It is indeed reasonably clear for the purpose of submitting bugs, fixes
> etc but it doesn't help me much with my work as a harvester and guide.
> I know I can simply post an approving comment with the [et] etc tags but
> at some point there has to be a place where more happens.
> 
> What is the status of a better set of tools for all this?
> 
> tim
> 
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Use IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE  IF...ELSE...  to implement multi-way branches.
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation