alignment patch (issue 3239) (was: 2.18 release plans (again))

[Janek Warchoł]

Ok, i said that i closed this topic, but a question was asked so just
a short answer:

2013/10/29 Julien Rioux <address@hidden>:
> 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.

It's more like "the patch contains architecture changes that are too
invasive for 2.18, it has to wait for 2.19".  It's not that much a
matter of docs - although i would indeed prefer to write them after
the code reaches a final form.

This is also why i haven't progressed on some other things (e.g. old
GSoC stuff) - if i'm to base some new code on these alignment
features, i'd like to first know how they would end up like.

>> 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.

Maybe. I'm not sure.

best,
Janek