From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-17 22:15:14
On Jun 17, 2007, at 3:36 PM, João Abecasis wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> João Abecasis wrote:
>>> * Ticket Type: we could use one or two more ticket types: (Library)
>>> Review Requests and a Review Manager Application. Perhaps a single
>>> generic "Review Request" would work just as well, to begin with.
>> Let's just have one ticket type. I suggest calling it "Library
>> Submission", because that seems to cover the whole process.
> Sure. "Library submission" looks good to me. Better than my "Review
> I'm happy with "Library Submission", not entirely with "Boost
> Anyway, while we're assuming a single component for the new ticket
> we may as well use None. Unless, of course, we want to merge different
> types of tickets in a single report... Let me think some more of this.
I've added the "Library Submission" ticket type to the Trac.
> I'll start by formalizing the process on the wiki integrating the
> discussed here and we'll go from there.
> I'm a bit uneasy about retroactively creating tickets for older
> requests/accepted libraries. It looks a bit like rewriting history...
> Anyway, I'll start integrating the Submission Process and Review
> Schedule in the Wiki and we'll see how that works. I may need to get
> some tickets in for testing, so perhaps there's no running from it...
So long as the end result in Trac matches what was documented on the
review schedule, it's a Good Thing to have all of that information in
one place, where it can be easily queried.
> Agreed. Once I start the pages I'll be sure to explicitly mention that
> this is not yet the approved submission process, but still a work in
Sure: just some blanket statement at the top should do fine. I'm a
big fan of having prototypes that we can just drop in and run with...
it makes it much easier to move forward, fast.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk