Hi,
This thread never got an answer:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:25:17 +0100 sajolida@??? wrote:
> On 28/12/12 21:56, intrigeri wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just split (and closed) a few tickets that have been waiting for
> > this to happen, so that we can start again from a cleaner and more
> > happy state. Yay :)
> >
> > How about we patch our merge policy to require that a merge request
> > email has, attached, a commit that deals with such leftovers? I'm
> > not a great fan of that strictly formalized rules, so I'd be happy
> > to hear better suggestions. Or perhaps we should just wait: the
> > move to a better task tracker may be enough to encourage us to deal
> > with these things in a more systematic way.
>
> Hi,
>
> With my WAN hat on, may I ask to people who often either publish or
> process merge requests, what do they think about this proposal? Do you
> think the gain compensate the extra workload? Would you be ready to
> apply such rule to your work?
>
For me, this means that we choosed "we should just wait: the
move to a better task tracker may be enough to encourage us to deal
with these things in a more systematic way". If anyone disagree, it's
time to speak up!
Cheers
