Daniel's X11R6.8.x approval requests / was: Re: [Bug 1896] libX11 support for pt_BR

[Daniel Stone]

On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 22:28 +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> My point is/was that the "approval"-flag just has the meaning that
> someone is requesting approval to get a patch into the "stable" branch
> (=X11R6.8.x branch). The term "stable" means in this case: The patch
> should be a known-to-be-good patch, e.g. something which is in trunk
> since some time and caused no trouble there or obvious fixes (e.g. typo
> fixes etc.). The "approval" flag is NOT a way to request review for a
> patch. The approval flag system was added to help release-wranglers to
> coordinate things in a better way than the previously used bug
> dependicies [1].

I understand your point, and thankyou for clarifying it.  However, it
should also be noted that these patches are not 'untested' -- they have
been deployed in two distributions (Ubuntu for all of them, Debian for
most of them) for quite some time; some of them have been in Debian
packages for years now.

> The part which made me slightly upset is that you didn't even stop
> requesting approval for (untested) patches which weren't commited to
> Xorg CVS trunk even after I emailed you about it and added even a
> comment in bugzilla... the whole stuff looked more like a DOS-attack
> against the approval queue than usefull work... ;-(

I can't remember having seen the comments about abuse of the system or
such before I sat down and started mass-filing, else I wouldn't have.
Either that or I just didn't notice.  In any case, it wasn't deliberate.
The note above about 'untested' patches also applies.

> [1]=(in your case (e.g. the UBUNTU bugs) I would simply suggest to
> create a "tracker" bug and mark all bugs with patches from UBUNTU as
> blockers for that tracker bug. And then make the tracker bug for UBUNTU
> as blocker for the release tracker bug)

Will do.