Scott Ritchie wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 11:24 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
On Saturday 23 September 2006 10:32, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Frankly, all we really need is for Alexandre to write a 10-second reply
to wine-devel for each patch he rejects.
On WineConf, we decided against this. That would still slow down the overall
patch submission speed. Consider you have a patch that's just fine, but
before you sent that, I sent in ten patches with C++ style comments.
Alexandre would now have to reply to ten patches with "No C++ style comments"
before processing your patch. Everybody reading wine-patches could point out
what was wrong with my patches.
Now, we agreed to try something different, two things actually. The first
thing is the "ambassador" thing Steve and a couple of other people mentioned
before. New contributors would be contacted by someone who would explain the
way wine works to them. Secondly, we wanted to make a standard practice of
what Mike's been doing for MSI patches. A developer proficient in a certain
area of wine will reply to all the patches for his area, do a review and also
makes sure they don't disappear into the void.
Well, as long as SOMEONE writes the 10-second reply, I suppose it
doesn't matter. But until we appoint the equivalent of Mike and MSI for
every part of Wine, Alexandre ends up being the default person to do it.
Thanks,
Scott Ritchie
Well, the way it works at present, nobody is obliged to write a 10
second reply and often don't. There has to be feedback to keep the
process moving. I don't receive it and patches languish unapplied,
delaying me considerably on tackling new work as I wait for acceptance
before proceeding.
Jeff Latimer
