A patchcomment nodetype is in order then (smells like a good idea to me).

A few pmdevils have become frustruated with just waiting around without any consideration/explanation of why their patches were rejected, thinking that their work is for nothing ( is it because most gods aren't that active, or whatever?).
It's a shame to have pmdevils lose interest (btw - I sympathise with the gods, it is a tough job, I know what it's like).

I say we implement patch comments regardless of how this 1/5th god idea turns out (calling all pmdevils: all this needs is a patchcomment nodetype, patchcomment display page, patchcomment edit page, and a patch for patch display page to include the patchcomments for that particular patch, and a addapatch form -- if you need help/ideas, ask away -- actually, you could get away with simply editing patch display page to include a form for creating nodes of type note, with the root_node set to that particular patch id -- which is better?).

BTW, any ideas on when the next, if any, batch of gods is coming out? (it's been so long since it's been mentioned/discussed, I completely forgot if any were scheduled to happen).

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
perl -e "$q=$_;map({chr unpack qq;H*;,$_}split(q;;,q*H*));print;$q/$q;"

In reply to Re: Re: pmdev: patches to consider (feature idea) by crazyinsomniac
in thread pmdev: patches to consider (feature idea) by crazyinsomniac

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":