Re: Proposed clarification to our issues process

On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:45:26 +0200, olivier Thereaux  
<olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On 22 May 2012, at 11:07, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>> I hope that most of the issues raised recently can be resolved without  
>> discussion. So, personally I think it would be fine if the editor (or  
>> his delegate(s)) simply checked in a change to the spec and moved the  
>> issue directly from Raised to Closed, preferably with a link to the  
>> Mercurial changeset that resolves the issue. If the change is not  
>> acceptable then someone can reopen the issue (I assume).
>
> Chris has already started adding mercurial change set links in issue  
> comments, which helps greatly. Chris, can you make sure to set the issue  
> status as "Pending Review" when you consider that the change set(s)  
> address all concerns? I've made sure all the changesets up to now were  
> reflected on tracker.
>
> Our request to have status changes sent to the list automatically has  
> been put by the w3c systems team on a backlog. In the meantime, I have  
> started doing it by hand with the help of a little web-scraping script  
> (attached, FYI).
>
> Do people prefer if I send notifications on the list about each item, or  
> would you rather receive a bulk update of all the issues which have been  
> set as "pending review" in the past n days?

I prefer what you've been doing, so that one can reply directly to that  
message and keep things in the correct thread.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software