29 Oct
2014
29 Oct
'14
12:42 p.m.
On 29 October 2014 13:21, Indrek Altpere efbiaiinzinz@hotmail.com wrote:
My previous response was mainly to Ruslan's reply, that 30 days waiting time could/should be considered the norm in some cases.
Yeah, it's not.
Perhaps there should be some more clear way to let the developers know that their patches are still not good enough (even to be reviewed and commented on) instead of checking the calendar to guess the status?
The patch status page seems pretty clear to me. Put a different way, suppose you e.g. had additional information about why a patch is still "New", what would you do with that information?