On Monday 25 September 2006 04:36, Robert Shearman wrote: > Robert Lunnon wrote: > > 2. Adapt the patch acceptance process to create a right of appeal where a > > patch can be proven to be within the Patch Acceptance policy. Appeal > > should be independent of and binding on Alexandre - this eliminates > > one-to-one arguments about patch acceptability while still providing good > > excellent control. It will also have the effect of reducing Alexandres > > workload. > > I think this process would be completely redundant, so can you give an > example of the patches that would meet the "Patch Acceptance policy" but > have been rejected by Alexandre?
I could (If there were a patch acceptance policy) but it'd be pointless at this point. > > BTW, you already have a right to appeal - it's a message to wine-devel > with a well-reasoned argument. Ah yes, but is it independent... There is a single acceptance channel, this is poor system design. Bob
