[Top] [All Lists]

Re: networking bugs and

To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: networking bugs and
From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 28 Jun 2003 20:20:53 +0100
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <34700000.1056760028@[]>
References: <3EFCC1EB.2070904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3EFCC6EE.3020106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.170022.74744550.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030628001954.GD18676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <34700000.1056760028@[]>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sad, 2003-06-28 at 01:27, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> That's a trivial change to make if you want it. we just add a "reviewed"
> / "certified" state between "new" and "assigned". Yes, might be a good 
> idea.  I'm not actually that convinced that "assigned" is overly useful
> in the context of open-source, but that's a separate discussion.

Most bugzilla's seem to use VERIFIED for this, and it means people who
have better things to do can just pull bugs that are verified and/or
tagged with "patch" in the attachments

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>