| To: | "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org |
| 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@[10.10.2.4]> |
| Organization: | |
| References: | <3EFCC1EB.2070904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3EFCC6EE.3020106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.170022.74744550.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030628001954.GD18676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <34700000.1056760028@[10.10.2.4]> |
| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org, Alan Cox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org, Alan Cox |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org, Martin J. Bligh |
| Next by Thread: | Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org, Martin J. Bligh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |