02-26-2017, 04:02 AM
I don't think there is anything wrong with closing a PR. It can always be reopened once people start working on it again. It just means there the PR is inactive for quite a while, not abandoned, but inactive.
| Poll: Do you want a more strict PR policy You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Yes | 5 | 83.33% | |
| No | 1 | 16.67% | |
| Total | 6 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
|
More strict PR-handling proposal
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Messages In This Thread |
|
More strict PR-handling proposal - by sphinxc0re - 02-25-2017, 06:32 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by xoft - 02-25-2017, 09:50 PM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by sphinxc0re - 02-25-2017, 11:40 PM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by yangm97 - 02-26-2017, 03:06 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by LogicParrot - 02-26-2017, 03:12 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by NiLSPACE - 02-26-2017, 04:02 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by sphinxc0re - 02-26-2017, 04:03 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by LogicParrot - 02-26-2017, 05:43 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by xoft - 02-26-2017, 06:31 AM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by LogicParrot - 03-03-2017, 07:06 PM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by xoft - 03-03-2017, 08:03 PM
RE: More strict PR-handling proposal - by LogicParrot - 03-03-2017, 09:05 PM
|
Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)