On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:41 -0400, Peter Hyman wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Many users seem to think > > > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable. I tend to agree with them, for the > > > most part. Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't > > > be included as-is. WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are > > > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case. > > > > But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when > > they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen > > in this case. > > > > I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in > the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I > did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer > NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the > bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user > will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild > upstream quicker. > > Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time. >
You will get exactly the same effect if you were to send a patch to LKML to fix or improve some or other part of the kernel, and either the coding style, or the way it is fixed is not to Linus or the specific subsystem maintainer's liking. The general idea is that if somebody want to get involved, they should be prepared to to take the time to learn how to do fairly decent patches/whatever. This makes review easier, and also minimises the workload on whatever maintainer. -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
