Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:52:45PM -0600, Vitaliy Margolen wrote: >> Dr J A Gow wrote: >>> How to capture these 'lost' contributions is a difficult issue. Maybe a >>> centralized repository for patches could be maintained separate from the >>> main >>> Wine tree and with a very loose method of acceptance (maybe just ensure >>> that it >>> is clearly indicated what the patch is for and what version it can be >>> applied >>> to). This way it would be very easy for a contributor to place a patch >>> somewhere >>> where it is easily accessed by the community. A developer with more time >>> who is >>> interested in it may pick it up and clean it up for inclusion in the tree, >>> but >>> at least the patch is available for others to use, saving re-invention of >>> the wheel. >>> >> Why reinvent the wheel? If such people can spend their time chasing down the >> problem >> and developing a fix for it, they sure can open a bug in bugzilla, describe >> theproblem >> and attach a patch they made. How more simple can it be? >> >> No patches lost, no extra places to look for. And all the information >> describing the >> problem. Everything in one place. > > And exactly this information should probably be stated in the wine-patches > subscription welcome mail. > > "If for some reason the Wine patches you submit fail to get applied, > then we'd appreciate you taking the effort of submitting your current patch > as a new item at bugzilla to help us track your work properly until it's > fully applied."
As alternative to bugzilla we have this section in the wiki. http://wiki.winehq.org/InterestingPatches This has several hac^H^H^Hpatches that I found uesfull and have used over time. I particularly like the "Mouse Hack" patch http://wiki.winehq.org/PatchMouseHack The thing is that if a patch is useful it will have a life of its own and I am glad that I have an easy way of getting to them when I want to try them. > > Or, for improved visibility, even state this in the footer of every > wine-patches mail > sent (probably bad idea, though). > > Oh, and a DNS alias (or preferrably forwarder) bugzilla.winehq.org might be > useful (after all it's quite common to have that site name, see e.g. > bugzilla.kernel.org or bugzilla.mozilla.org etc.). > Yes please.. -- Tony Lambregts