svn commit: r505045 - head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard

[Tijl Coosemans]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:45:33 +1000 Kubilay Kocak <koobs at FreeBSD.org>
wrote:
> On 25/06/2019 6:29 pm, Piotr Kubaj wrote:
>> To be honest, I fail to see the meaning of this flag.
>> 
>> If it's not about approval, then what does this flag actually mean? Only 
>> that "I acknowledge that there's a problem"?  
> 
> It means feedback is required. Feedback can take many forms. Not all 
> bugs are patch submissions requiring (only) approval from a maintainer.
> 
> Take for example, a bug report without a patch. maintainer-feedback? is 
> set when issue is created. The maintainer comes back with 'i can 
> reproduce the problem' and sets maintainer-feedback + (feedback 
> provided). Triage sets need-patch keyword requesting a patch to fix the 
> issue and sets maintainer-feedback? again, feedback this time being in 
> the form of a patch.
> 
>> Then maybe work-in-progress? As in, the maintainer is working on the fix.  
> 
> This doesn't cover feedback of forms that don't involve work/patches, 
> the vast majority, and this is already covered by needs-patch keyword in 
> any case.
> 
> Again, if there's any way to improve the maintainer-feedback flag name 
> to not mean 'approval' (as thats not what its for), I'd been keen to 
> hear ideas.

But what purpose does it serve?  Who's workflow depends on the flag and
why?  It all seems like pointless paperwork to me.  When maintainer
feedback is necessary seems obvious: if the last comment isn't his, his
feedback is needed.  Why do we have to set a flag for that?