Re: [translations] Re: 2.18 release plans (again).

[Julien Rioux]

On 29/10/2013 4:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Julien Rioux <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On 27/10/2013 2:09 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> > > That's good, but the most irritating thing about this patch is not
> > > that i have to solve merge conflicts.  I'm mainly irritated because a
> > > piece of solid code (maybe it's not as solid as i think, but to know
> > > that i need _reviews_) is laying dormant for *half a year*, which
> > > prohibits me from working on some other stuff.  I would really like to
> > > get some of my GSoC work finished and merged into master, and this
> > > patch is a first step for that.
> >
> > I'm curious, why is this issue set to Patch-waiting?

I had to go answer my own question: The patch contains code changes 
without the necessary doc changes, so it is not suitable for 
Patch-review state, but Janek would appreciate reviewer comments so that 
the code can reach a final form before doing the doc changes.

> > I think generally
> > people hardly ever have enough time to look at Patch-countdown issues,
> > so a Patch-waiting issue would definitely not get much attention.
>
> Well, that's what Janek complained about.  It's more or less a
> consequence of our grading system: "Patch-review" means "slated to move
> to countdown" and "Patch-Countdown" means "slated to move to
> Patch-push".

Patch-waiting seems like the correct qualifier. How about advertising 
those Patch-waiting issues as part of the Countdown email that is sent 
regularly? We currently have 7 of those, and could probably pretty 
quickly identify which one are truly waiting and which one are now 
abandoned.

Cheers,
Julien