Bugs with Patches

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 1/3/21 11:50 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> One thing we might do on the way to 2.4.0 is look over the bugs that
> have patches. Here's a URL for that search:
>
> https://www.lyx.org/trac/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&keywords=~patch&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=component&order=priority
>
> It'd be great if various people could have a look at some of these. That
> might be a relatively easy way to get some more fixes into 2.4.0
> (low-hanging fruit). You don't have to be a developer with commit rights
> to join this effort!
>
> I've added the triage keyword to all of these bugs. Please remove it if
> you look at one of these bugs and make some determination along the
> following lines. Then we won't duplicate effort. (Unfortunately, it is
> not possible to search for bugs with 'patch' AND 'triage'. So look at
> the keywords field to see if 'triage' is still there.)
>
> The first question is whether the patch is even still valid (i.e., isn't
> totally out of date). If so, then we can remove the patch keyword.
>
> If so, does the patch look like one we could actually commit for 2.4.0?
> If so, then either go ahead, if you're confident (and have commit
> rights), or else start a discussion on trac (cc'ing me) or on the list.
> You might set the milestone to 2.4.0 as well. If the patch doesn't look
> ready, then they keyword is ok, but maybe set the milestone to 2.4.x or
> else to 'nothing'.

PS If a bug seems like one that will never be fixed, I'd suggest closing
it as WONTFIX. It makes trac less useful to us if there are gazillions
of bugs that will never actually get attention. Perhaps another option
would be to set priority to lowest if we want to keep the bug on record.
Thoughts?

Riki