I would say that it's about more than just committing it. If nobody with
commit access cares enough about committing a patch, then who is going to
maintain, bugfix, and document (and translate) that feature, and going
forward ensure that the feature remains correctly documented and tested? I
would suggest we don't need to formalise a procedure to get patches
committed; but we might need to formalise something more on ownership after
something has been committed. For patches that already include full
documentation and no bugs, maybe all that's required indeed is agreement
amongst developers that the patch gets committed and becomes an accepted
part of rockbox trunk, but that might be less likely if it's a feature that
developers themselves have no interest in. But also (speaking generally now)
there are probably a number of patches that don't tick these boxes
currently, and for those the trick might be to do all the work upfront and
then try to convince devs that it is ready for inclusion.
