Naz Gassiep wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Naz Gassiep wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran
>>> on known, sane patches.
>>>
>> How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane?
>>
> Same way as happens now.
>
The question was rhetorical ... there is no list of "certified sane but
unapplied" patches. You are proceeding on the basis of a faulty
understanding of how our processes work.
cheers
andrew