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@sumeru.stanford.edu wrote:
"Brent Vukmer" bvukmer@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@sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim Use IF...ELSE IF...ELSE IF...ELSE... to implement multi-way branches. _______________________________________________ Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org