On Monday 25 September 2006 20:08, Ge van Geldorp wrote: > > From: Steven Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Which is why we want to have the ambassadors project to help > > new people in to wine. The thinking goes that if we have some > > people to help hold the hands of new developers and the > > developers that are defacto maintainers of a certain section > > of code will respond to patches as they seem them, this will > > free julliard from having to answer every single patch with a > > reply. > > You can have ambassadors and subsystem maintainers all you want, but in the > end it's still going to be Alexandre who decides if a patch goes in. That > means the end-responsibility of informing developers why a patch was > rejected needs to be with Alexandre. If an ambassador or subsystem > maintainer already explained it, fine, no need to create double work for > Alexandre, but if noone responded I'd still expect Alexandre to send a > notification. > > Just for the record, my own policy on patch submission (and I really hope > to get back to working on Wine and submitting patches Real Soon Now :-)) is > to submit a patch once. If I get feedback I'll try to improve and resubmit, > but if it goes the black hole route I'm not going to beg for an > explanation. If the Wine community can't be bothered to provide feedback I > can't be bothered to resubmit. After all, I've already scratched my itch, > the bug is already fixed in my tree, it's the communities loss, not mine. >
This mirrors my policy, I used to care - now I don't - That is bad, Wine needs developers who care. (Patently I do care enough to start this thread) Also the ambassador program doesn't help to improve the process , it serves to perpetuate it. Bob > Ge van Geldorp
